1)
For this blog post, you can respond to the text in any way you would
like. 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. 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..."
"Somebody behind him in the boxcar said, 'Oz.' That was I. That was me. The only other city I'd ever seen was Indianapolis, Indiana."(148)
ReplyDeleteWhy does Vonnegut include himself in the story?
There has been parts in the novel that Vonnegut has included himself in the events of the war with Billy. He is a prisoner of war with the other Americans and goes to Dresden with them, before it was bombed. The first chapter of the book is all about Vonnegut, so I was surprised when he put himself as a character in the book. I think that he does this because he wants to emphasize the reality of the war and other major events. Because he is a character, it makes the book and events in it reality. It also makes the supernatural events less real and more of a mentally sick mind of a soldier.
I also thought the same thing about Vonnegut changing the the narrator to himself. At first it was very confusing but then I thought the same thing about him trying to make things more realistic. He's trying to make the events more dramatic. I also think he's trying to make a point about believing in what's real and what's not, like Tralfamadore.
Delete“If you protest, if you think that death is a terrible thing, then you have not understood a word I’ve said” (142).
ReplyDeleteThis to me seems weird. If Billy knows he’s going to die, why doesn’t he stop himself from getting killed? Why doesn’t he care if he’s going to die? If Billy thinks that this is true, then he probably thinks life is meaningless. I personally think that death is a terrible thing, because all it does is bring pain towards others. However, Vonnegut probably believes that death is peaceful, since no one would be experiencing any hatred anymore. There was no thought of any sympathy, when Dresden was bombed. In general, life is valued so little, that even war is pointless.
I think Billy does not stop himself from being killed because he comes to terms with his death. He accepts his death not only because he already knows how and when it will happen (he is unstuck in time), but because of what the Tralfamadorians told him earlier on in the novel. For one of Billy's letters, Vonnegut writes,"The most important thing I learned on Tralfamadore was that when a person dies he only appears to die. He is still very much alive in the past, so it is very silly for people to cry at his funeral. All moments, past, present and future, always have existed, always will exist" (26). Billy understands that when he dies, he is technically alive in past moments, which is probably why he does not seem worried about his death.
DeleteI agree with Jamila that Billy isn't in fear of dying because he knows what his future is to become and he knows when he should worry and when he shouldn't. I do however think that Yesenia brought up a very good point in the story. When I read this passage I felt that it was Vonnegut talking through Billy. In this chapter we see Vonnegut stepping out Billy's character many times, making an assertive statement. I think what Vonnegut is trying to say is that his message is not to fear death or to to think war is bad only because of death. Rather he wants to make it clear that war terrorizes the living, it haunts and tortures them forever. In contrast death is more of an alleviation, death is caused by war, but there is nothing after death thus there is noting to fear. Instead Vonnegut is making it clear that humans spend to much time worrying of dying when they really they should worry of those who make living a pain. We should think terribly of those who oppress the living. Vonnegut wants to ensure that his message is not being interpreted and that we see the real monsters, not death, but the leaders of war which are humans. Humans seek to control and cause pain to others and those are the ones who are really terrible, those are the monsters of our lives and they are those who make our life so terrible.
DeleteI agree with you, Jamila. Billy has no problem with being killed because he knows that he will only be dead for a short while. However, Yesenia, I have to disagree with you when you say that Vonnegut thinks that death is peaceful, especially not murder. Vonnegut is against war in a big way, and Vonnegut sees war as death and murder. (I remember from the interview.) Vonnegut, especially with the use of "so it goes" is portraying that death should be valued more and that casualties in war shouldn't be casual as they are. I do agree with you when you say that "even war is pointless". Vonnegut certainly believes that even though war cannot be avoided, it is unnecessary and a bit ridiculous. Edgar Derby, as we already know, is going to be killed for "taking a teapot that wasn't his" (1). That punishment certainly does not fit the crime.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"The boots fit perfectly. Billy Pilgrim was Cinderella, and Cinderella was Billy Pilgrim" (145).
ReplyDeleteThis quote stood out to me because it is one of the many times in the novel that I've noticed how Billy seems to be defined by his surroundings, and does not seem to have much of an identity or sense of self. When Billy put on the silver boots, he "became" Cinderella. Why does Vonnegut include this strange description of Billy dressed as Cinderella? Vonnegut often describes what Billy is wearing, where he is, and what is happening to him in a very objective way, and we rarely get any description of his inner feelings or his personality. So, this description could be another example of how Billy easily morphs to his surroundings. I think that Vonnegut does this deliberately in order to make a statement. He could be trying to convey something about identity and war, and how war causes people to lose their identity, or he could be saying something about how witnessing so much violence causes people to become emotionless and fragmented.
"If he [Lazzaro] had been a dog in a city, a policeman would have shot him and sent his head to a laboratory, to see if he had rabies. So it goes" (144).
ReplyDelete"He [Derby] said that his primary responsibility now was to make damn well sure that everybody got home safely" (147).
Why does Vonnegut include the characters of Edgar Derby and Paul Lazzaro?
While reading, I noticed that Edgar Derby and Paul Lazzaro are foils of each other. Paul Lazzaro is a weak, negative and violent man, whereas Edgar Derby is a strong and positive man. Lazzaro has somebody else fight his fights and wants to continue the war even after it has ended. Derby sees the light at the end of the tunnel and wants to go home to his family. I think that these two characters combined represent the terrible things about war. It seems to me that the amount of violence and hatred inside of Lazzaro portrays what war does to a person. Vonnegut wants to show that war ruins a person and that sometimes, war instincts stay with people forever. Edgar Derby represents what war does to everyone. He has a family at home that he was torn away from, and after the incident in Dresden, his wife becomes a widow. He, in this chapter, writes to his home several times. In those letters, he promises that he will return home soon, but we know that he never will. Through the characterization of Derby and Lazzaro, Vonnegut shows that any way you slice it, war always causes both physical and mental destruction.
I agree with you Isabel, I was actually questioning the same thing and wondering why Lazzaro was so mean and wanted to continue to kill and hurt people who "crossed" him. I also found it a coincidence that his best friend was Weary. Your point that war changes people forever is a very strong one. I think after all those bad things that happened to Derby he would be infuriated with war does and how unfair and unjust it is. Which is another connection Vonnegut makes with these two characters that after awhile when veterans come home and they are welcomed into a society that is a go for war. It upsets them it makes them want to hurt the people who go fro war, like to try to snap some sense into them. Which is probably why parents who have loved ones in the war tell their kids that when dad or mom comes home not ask any questions on where they where and what it was like, because it hits a sensitive nerve, a nerve.
DeleteI also agree with Isabel. These characters are really opposites and yet coexist with each other and Billy. Like Paola said, it's a coincidence that Lazzaro and Weary were friends. They are very similar, but people who were already damaged, violent, and vindictive before the war. I wonder what Vonnegut is saying when he has Billy death be caused by Weary and Lazzaro. Also, he chooses to have Lazzaro (weak, negative) survive the war and Derby (strong, positive) die in Dresden. Maybe that life and death isn't fair and bad things happen to good people while good things happen to bad people?
DeleteThis idea didn't pop into my head as I was reading but it is a great point. I completely agree with you on the thought that Lazzaro and Derby represent a bigger meaning than people think. I think they symbolize the characters of war. Lazarro being scared of confronting his problems himself and sending others to do the dirty work for him like many leaders who send their armies to war without the courage to fight. On the other hand Derby represents the people who don't believe in war but peace, the people that think that violence isn't a resolution but a problem.
Delete"no, no " says billy serenely. "it is time for you to go home to your wives and children, and it is time for me to be dead for a little while-and then live again"
ReplyDeleteWhat is Vonnegut trying to say about fate?
When i read this Passage on page 143 I saw a combination of both Vonnegut trying to say something very important, as usual, and him re enforcing one of his repeated quotes. When he says "die for a while and then live again" it connects to his "so it goes" quote. But at the same time I questioned his choice of words because if Vonnegut doesn't believe in the after life, then why would he make his character Billy say that? At first I thought he was trying to say that maybe having a religion is nice but not necessary. But then I didn't really think that would fight with the whole idea behind the book. So i started to think of reason why Billy wouldn't want police to protect him from his death. It was his fate to die. He was going to die sooner or later, so why mess it up and try to live a little longer? He was at war, and he obviously saw gruesome things, things that made him loose hope in God, things that literally made him loose sleep at night. He obviously wouldn't want to continue living in nightmares. But on top of that its the way of letting the reader know that we are all going to die. It sad but true and we can not be afraid of death.
I agree with you for the most part. Vonnegut is a humanist yet in this book he contradicts majority of his beliefs. Why is this? I also agree with you on Billy's fate tot die. Although I don't believe that it was because of the things he saw in war. In my opinion Billy was oblivious to everything. I feel Vonnegut has a bigger aspect with fate and death but I can't seem to grasp it.
Delete“What the Englishmen said about survival was this: ‘ if you stop taking pride in your appearance you will very soon die.’” (145)
ReplyDeleteOver the course of this book, I was stuck by this ongoing idea of identity and confronting your identity. If you stop remembering who you are, you can’t be loyal to your identity, thus your identity dies. Although in this case you will die because you lose the purpose of living, you have nothing to fight for, because you don’t even know who you are nor does anyone else. If you are honest about who you are, and you recognize what makes you, yourself, one is able to face reality and conquer it. Billy Pilgrim bounces back and fourth from the future to the past, he survives all of these traumatic events because he never forgets who he is.
sorry posted on the wrong page!
Delete“He crawled to the boots on all fours, sat, tried them on. The boots fit perfectly. Billy Pilgrim was Cinderella, and Cinderella was Billy Pilgrim.” Pg. 145
ReplyDeleteThis moment stood out to me because I think there definitely is a connection between the Cinderella story and Slaughterhouse Five. If Billy Pilgrim is Cinderella, then his time as a prisoner of war, working hard, starving, is the time Cinderella was oppressed by her evil stepmother and stepsisters. Billy is humiliated and made to seem foolish as a prisoner, just like Cinderella, forced to clean and covered in cinders. Continuing this parallel, I think the Tralfamadorians are Billy’s fairy godmother. They rescue him from a life of monotony and painful war memories, and from his perspective save him by teaching him the truth about time, death and free will. On Tralfamadore, Billy gets to be Montana Wildhack’s lover, so I guess she is Prince Charming if he is Cinderella. Anyway, I think this small mention of Billy as Cinderella can be extended to show the importance of the Tralfamadorians in Billy’s life. His time on Tralfamadore transforms him and was a significant time period for him.
P.S. I know this quote was used already but I had a pretty different take so wanted to use it anyway
oops forgot question: Why does Vonnegut compare Billy to Cinderella? How do the stories relate?
DeleteI agree with you about the similarities between Cinderella and Billy. I never thought of it in this way but it makes a lot of sense. They both start out as a nobody, and then a life-changing event occurs and they become different. They both change but one of them changes for the worst. The only difference I can think of between the two is that Cinderella lives happily ever after and Billy becomes a mentally sick person and is soon killed.
Delete“Enjoy life while you can. Nothing's gonna happen for maybe five, ten, fifteen, twenty years. But lemme give you a piece of advice: Whenever the doorbell rings, have somebody else answer the door" (141).
ReplyDeleteWhen Paul Lazzaro says this as a threat to Billy for supposedly killing Roland Weary, I was immediately reminded of the phrase "What goes around comes around." Because Roland Weary tells Lazzaro that he was going to die because of Billy, the vengeful Lazzaro vows to somehow get Billy killed and he does so (either himself or using a hit man). This situation corresponds with the effect war has on soldiers. I think Vonnegut is trying to say that a soldier that experiences post traumatic stress disorder can acquire professional treatment, but no matter how much it alleviates the pain, the trauma will always be with him/her in some way. There may even be a time 20 or so years after their time in war when the soldier believes they have finally beat the trauma only to realize that it has come back out of nowhere to shoot them, in which case the soldier should get someone else to open the door, AKA seek more assistance for their trauma. No matter how much you try to hide from the past, it always manages to unexpectedly seep into your future. This assertion that Vonnegut makes further supports his stance on being against war.
"As a time traveler, he has seen his own death many times, has described
ReplyDeleteit to a tape recorder."
How does Billy's time traveling relate to the Tralfalmadorians point of
view on death?
Billy travels all throughout his life reliving every moment again and
again always knowing what is going to happen next. Billy sees every moment
of his life laid out in front of them. He sees them all at once instead of
in a string of events one after another. He knows how he is going to die,
he has lived through it, and beyond it. For him death isn't the end, it's just a memory. It is similar to the way Tralfalmadorians see life and death. When some one dies life goes on, because you can remember them. Maybe the way Billy is living is his life, is the way the Tralfalmadorians live. The first time Billy got "unstuck in time" was when her first visited Tralfalmadore. After that was when he started time travelling. Maybe the book is both metaphorical and literal.
I completely agree! I got the sense that maybe the time traveling represented something that was related to death. The fact that he can experience these moments over and over is sort of creepy. I thought that maybe when we die, we actually revisit moments in our life That we have physically died but not mentally. Billy can see his future, and no matter what he does it won't change. Which made me think that maybe Vonnegut is trying to say that death isn't something that should be feared because we can always revisit moments of our lives and maybe death is the time when people go back and reflect. I don't really know if I'm right or not and to be perfectly honest it all sounds crazy. But in a weird way it makes sense.
DeleteI agree with you, Sophia because i also think that Billy is not living a human- like life. I think that Billy also does not really look towards anything because he already knows whats coming for him. Also he focuses a lot on his past and him changing.I think that it is his pasts fault that he lives a non- human like life. I think its can all go back to the violence he saw as a kid of jesus on the cross and then the very gory war which messed him up even more.
DeleteI agree with you. Billy’s ability to travel through time makes him kind of immortal. Bill’s perception of some “human” event like birth or death is like spots in indefinite timeline. Hence, life becomes more mentally aspect then physically, and that is very Tralfalmadorians understanding of life and death.
Delete"If i may inject a personal note: It has been 5 yeas now since i have seen a tree or flower or women or child- or a dog or a cat or a place of entertainment, or a human being doing useful work of any kind." (146)
ReplyDeleteI found this quote very interesting because this quote is from an englishman and i feel that he is in the exact same place as Billy. Even though Billy has actually seen trees and such within 5 years Billy is rarely living life on earth or at least in his own physical body.Billy is mostly living on the planet Tralfamadore. I think that this can be traced back to Billy being the only survivor on the plane crash. It is because of Billy seeing so much violence and death that he can no longer live normally. I think the war has the same affect on many people and their ways of living in their own physical body. I think that the experience of watching a death or seeing violence majorly affects a person and destroys their mind and their way of viewing things. This is clearly shown in Billy's life and also in the englishman's life.
"'It is time for you to go home to your wives and children, and it is time for me to be dead for a little while-and then live again.'" (143)
ReplyDeleteThis quote was quite confusing when I first read it. I was trying to figure out why Billy said that he would live again, because when you die you don't become alive again. I realized then that Billy could be referring to his time travel. That no one actually ever dies because there are snippets of their life stuck in time. Vonnegut is trying to demonstrate that death happens whether we like it or not. But when we die we can always go back and revisit moments of our life. I know this sounds a bit weird and I didn't really think it made sense but, when it comes to understanding Billy's time travel it does. At least to me it does. I think that Billy is not afraid of death because he knows regardless of what happens, his life is set and whether he dies or not he can't change anything that is going to happen. In a weird way it's kind of interesting to think that we can revisit moments of our past, future and present. I mean how do we know we aren't actually dead right now and we are just revisiting a moment in time?
I agree. I think the idea that death is not an end, but a new beginning. Early on in the book Billy says in one of his letters to the newspaper that it is silly to cry over the death because the that person is still alive, just in a different moment. All moments of the past, present, and future have always existed and always will existed. Also, more recently, when Billy is assassinated by the man with the laser-gun he jumps back to a different moment in time. He becomes dead or stagnate in that moment however he becomes "alive" in another. So when when he says that he maybe be waiting for this moment to "die" so he can live in the next one. Jumping from moment to moment is the life and death he talks about in the quote.
Delete“You needn’t worry about bombs, by the way. Dresden is an open city. It is undefended…(Vonnegut 146)”
ReplyDeletewhat exactly is Vonnegut trying to say about humans and irony?
Something I was struck by was Vonnegut’s display of irony in life. This quote is very humorous because one of the events in World War II was the bombing of Dresden. The fact that Vonnegut chooses to include this example of human irony made me wonder what exactly is he trying to say about humans and irony? I believe that he was intentionally trying to make fun of humans. On a another note, I think that Vonnegut decided to choose Billy as the main character because Billy knows the future, which contrasts the inaccurate predictions made by humans and to further point out this irony.
I agree with you, girl. Humans are made to believe that nothing bad will happen in an instant, that it'll be written out for them. The city will be called a "bomb-scare" city if bombs are meant to come that way. They think they're all safe because no one has yet to hurt them, Despite them being in the axis power of a horrible war, the people of Dresden should be scared because nothing is for certain. Nothing is ever planned ahead in the future.
DeleteQuote: "It is time for you to go home to your wives and children, and it is time for me to be dead for a little while-and then live again"
ReplyDeleteQuestion:
Why does Vonnegut bring in this idea of dying and coming back to life? Is he referring to time travel?
Response:
As i was reading chapter six i came across this passage and it immediately stood out to me. I don't know why it did, I may have been over thinking it but it immediately gave me the idea he was inferring to religion, like reincarnation but then again it could have just been the use of time travel of him going back in time and living his life or not but it just got me confused as to why Vonnegut would mention this line of, "it is time for me to be dead for a little while-and then live again". Maybe he left for interpretation but it just got me confused and made me seek for answers which i couldn't find. Then again I may be over thinking this.
"Nothing's gonna happen for five,ten, fifteen, twenty years. But lemme give you a piece of advice: Whenever the doorbell rings, have somebody else answer the door." (141)
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Why is the significance of including a character like Paul Lazzaro?
I was surprised at Lazzaro's comments. He seemed like a psychopath. He is kind of an amplified version of Roland Weary. But the fact that he would kill a man (Billy) for a man he knew briefly (Roland) is crazy to me. And he threatened to kill the Englishman without hesitation. So what is Vonnegut trying to say about war by including these malicious violent characters? Considering this book is an "anti-war" novel I think Vonnegut is using Lazzaro as an example of the warped personalties that result from it. War has taught Lazzaro that murder is okay so he makes sees no problem in planning to kill people for relatively small offenses. This is playing to the idea that Vonnegut is trying to show war/violent culture is desensitizing people. Lazzaro is an extreme case of this but the circumstance of war is also extreme.
I agree with your ideas, although I saw Lazzaro as a character who represented a larger idea of why wars are started. I do believe you are correct in showing the things wars do to people and the personas it creates, but also believe Vonnegut uses the passage about revenge as a way of explaining war, even though he sometimes describes war as being so pointless there is no explanation. Simple characters such as Roland Weary and Lazzaro are used to show both larger ideas and zoomed in personas of soldiers and ideas of war.
Delete“Lazzar said that he could have anybody in the world killed for a thousand dollars, plus traveling expenses” (140)
ReplyDeleteHow war can change the people?
Through Lazzar’s character Vonnegut illustrates how people get changed, in a negative way, affected by war horror. As a result of the war, people manifest their worst characteristics, like violence, greed and inhumanity. In war chaotic conditions, life becomes cheap (“a thousand dollars”), and anybody could get killed, for any, even banal reason. In the war, rules are changing, aggressive and evil people kill the weak and defenseless. And that is war about is.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree, war changes people in many ways. Perhaps Lazzar wasn't this mean before war. I think the many traumatic experiences definitely impacts people. I think it changes the way people view the world. Lazzar was probably a nicer person before war but the scaring experiences forced him to emotionally toughen up.
Delete"Anybody ever asks you what the sweetest thing in life is... it's revenge."
ReplyDeleteWhy does Vonnegut create a character who opposes all of his own morals? What is he trying to say by creating Lazzaro as a character?
I believe Vonnegut used the idea of revenge in this passage to show the reason humans fight amongst each other. Vonnegut believes that because we are all human, we theoretically should be able to live in peace together on the planet we share. This is obviously not true, and Vonnegut examines this by diving into the human emotion of revenge. Vonnegut disagrees with revenge as a just idea and believes fighting should not permit fighting, otherwise we will destroy ourselves as a race. The Tramalfadorians live in peace, focusing on larger questions about life and what it means to be alive, while humans focus on ideas which Vonnegut deems in a way to be "petty" that create pointless fighting between ourselves. Vonnegut uses his ideas as a way of asking people to stop seeking revenge and to realize the result of allowing fighting to permit fighting.
I agree with you. I think that the whole reason Vonnegut creates the Tralfamadorians is to show how absurd the human race can be. Not only are different countries at war with each other, but the soldiers are willing to kill fellow men from the same army. I also agree with you when you said that Vonnegut uses characters who oppose all his morals. I think in doing so, he is able to clearly display his beliefs without saying "I think that.."
Delete"He was advised to be content with knowing that they could work miracles for him, provided he did not insist on learning their nature. That was all right with Billy Pilgrim. He was grateful. He was glad." (137)
ReplyDeleteWhat is Vonnegut implying about the nature of the unambitious people?
This quote is extremely relatable. Vonnegut is conveying the idea that people who refuse to dig deeper and analyze things on a more profound level, will never become exposed to the evils of the world. Remaining oblivious to certain things can insure happiness because the more you dig into something, the more horrors will be uncovered. That is why madness goes hand in hand with intellect. Learning so much. always wondering more, and never believing it is enough can drive a person crazy. However, it is the ambition to learn something greater, as if it is an allegory of life and uncover a second meaning. Being oblivious is believing in something and remaining happy about what's on the surface. At one point in time, I tried to do that and I was happy for a while, but then curiousity killed the cat and I'm back to overthinking life again.
"The Englishmen said that he, when captured, had made and kept the following vows to himself: ...to exercise for at least half an hour each morning...and to look into a mirror frequently, frankly evaluating his appearance..." Page 145-146
ReplyDeleteThis line stood out to me because I believe it relates to society today. In our society, appearance is taken very seriously and is very important to many people. However, it surprises me that the Englishman was thinking about something that should be so unimportant at such a horrifying time. This brings up the question, why are looks so important to the Englishman? He claims it's to stay alive, but he could do that without looking in the mirror constantly. I think, in this case, it is important for him to look in the mirror to make sure he's still him, the same man he was when he entered the POW camp. I think that, because it was such a terrifying experience and he didn't know what would happen to him, he needs that reassurance that he's the same person, inside and out.
I completely agree with you Jenna. I think his appearance is the only constant in his life and he depends on that to remind him of his live before the POW camp- a better time in his life (arguably). I don't think he is checking on his appearance everyday to make sure he looks presentable, like most people do in modern day societies. I think he is checking his appearance to make sure he still sees the same man he saw before entering the war. Seeing something constant and familiar while the whole world around him is hectic and changing can be
Deletecomforting.
"The parade pranced, staggered, and reeled to the gate of the Dresden slaughterhouse, and then it went inside. The slaughterhouse wasn't a busy place any more. Almost all the hooved animals in Germany had been killed and eat and excreted by human beings, mostly soldiers. So it goes" (152). This quote made me extremely curios about war and particularly war prisoners. What is the point of holding people captive during war? I am not saying that I believe anyone should be killed, but why wouldn't commanders or solders just kill the prisoners they catch. Why go through all the trouble of keeping them alive yet providing them with minimal living luxuries and treating them poorly? As aid in this quote, the prisoners are staying in an old slaughterhouse. Why go through the trouble of traveling with these prisoners to bring them to an old slaughterhouse with no real intent of doing anything specific to them? This then brings up the idea that although soldiers are fighting and engaging in war, maybe they are not cold hearted enough to just kill innocent enemies. If you think about it, in war, one solider does not have a specific problem with an opposing solider. It's all about what side they're fighting for and what/who they're defending. Therefore, when it comes down to just solider on solider interaction, perhaps soldiers become more warm and understanding to fellow soldiers, even if they are fighting against them as a whole.
ReplyDelete"People f**k with me," Lazarro said, "and Jesus Christ are they ever f**king sorry. I laugh like hell. I don't care if it's a guy or a dame. If the President of the United States f**ked around with me, I'd fix him good. You should have seen what I did to a dog one time."
ReplyDeleteIn this chapter, we are introduced to Paul Lazzaro, another prisoner of war. In this quote, Lazzaro explains the story about slaughtering of the dog. His tone when he told the story shows his urge for revenge and how nothing will stop him. This worries me because Billy Pilgrim and Edgar Derby were directed at this threat. Vonnegut demonstrates that people are ruthless during war. To me, I would think that those involved don’t care about who they're at war with or innocent people, there only goal is to win. Vonnegut not only demonstrates the ruthlessness of soldiers but also how war or the urge to win can change a person. This quote describes the word war. In my opinion, war is the urge to win, to be ruthless without consequence, and get revenge. I still wonder why if war is for ruthlessness what is Billy Pilgrim doing in the middle of it?
My very first question in the first chapter was, "How does war change people?"
DeleteAs you pointed out, war makes people violent and ruthless. Why would they change into something like that? Maybe with all the gory images of war and deaths, people see how the enemy ruthlessly kills and doesn't believe in using a conscience or morals. Although, it seems Lazzaro is naturally violent and vengeful and not like the war had changed him. How else would you believe war changes people?
This quote symbolized to me not the effect that war has upon men, but rather the effect that it does not have. The dog that Lazarro no doubt did some atrocious act to existed before the war, not after. His threats are based in actions made before the war started. It can be argued that these threats are hollow, and merely a backing to Lazarro’s false bravado, but I would find that quite improbable. Whereas a man who wish to inspire fear in those around him might conjure up a story of battles with great and powerful man, Lazarro does not. He boasts of an accomplishment not of strength, cunning, or hardship, but rather one of cruelty and pettiness. Torturing a dog is not a challenge for any man of even a small amount of strength, and there is no way that the dog had done anything to justify Lazarro’s furry, rather this furry is a result of his nature. His nature came long before the war, and he proved himself to be a cruel bully before he was sent out upon the fields of battle. And those fields of battle did not change him. He did not become a brave noble man, but stayed a petty, cruel one, turning his rightfully deserved critiques into threats and attacks on everyone he could.
Delete"Edgar Derby, the high school teacher who would eventually be shot, snored on another."(136)
ReplyDeleteWhy does Vonnegut keep including Edgar Derby's death and leading into it if death is insignificant?
Vonnegut has been hinting at Derby's death since the first chapter. And through almost all of the book, the main phrase has been "So it goes" after every death. I believe this somehow contradicts Vonnegut's beliefs and views on death. He wants to make death seem the way Tralfamadorians believe it, that the person isn't really dead and their death isn't significant to think twice about. Yet, Vonnegut has mentioned Derby's death to be very significant to his story in "Slaughterhouse 5". Why, of all characters, would Derby's death be the most important and not the boiled school girls or anyone's else? We haven't read to that part yet, but maybe Derby dies a death he wasn't supposed to really die or he was too noble for his death. Derby is a plain, old school teacher, why would Vonnegut choose someone with such a plain description? This connects to Vonnegut's choice in creating a plain main character for his plot who does not seem to be a "movie star actor hero".
Billy found two small sources [of animal magnetism], two lumps an inch apart and hidden in the lining [of his jacket]. One was shaped like a pea. The other was shaped like a tiny horseshoe. Billy received a message carried by the radiation. He was told not to find out what the lumps were. He was advised to be content with knowing that they could work miracles for him, provided he did not insist on learning their nature. That was all right with Billy Pilgrim. He was grateful. He was glad. (137)
ReplyDeleteWhat is the purpose of this passage?
This is one of the few moments where Vonnegut refuses to explain something. The two lumps are a diamond (which Billy gives to Valencia after the war) and a partial denture (which Billy keeps in a box). Billy says he is fine that these lumps "they could work miracles for him, provided he did not insist on learning their nature.". This shows how little curiosity Billy has, he just wants to go on with his life. This mentality is similar to the fact that he has no free will. This is one explanation for why he is ok with no free will or the fact that he doesn't make decisions in his life. My question is why these objects as the source of this "magic"?
Its interesting that you bring that up. He is almost controlled in a robot like manner. Where he has no self thought but only under the influence of others. He doesn't really understand how to think for himself. He does things because they seem like the right thing to do or they are helping to benefit someone else so in general maybe he does this because society is to corrupt for him to give his own thought
Delete"You made a big mistake",said Lazzaro. "Anybody touches me, he better kill me, or I'm gonna have him killed. " (138)
ReplyDeleteI think this shows how selfish people are described in this text. Vonnegut does this in order to show how people value only their lives and no on else's. They feel if they are threatened that they deserve to die instead of them. They also feel that if you take their life it is more precious than the life of anyone else or even your own. This is written because we all know that taking someones life is wrong but as long as its not your life it doesn't matter. People tend to think that their own life should be valued more than anyone elses. Vonnegut write this ti contradict evrything he belieces in order to show flaw in the cracks of society and what it means to be a humanist. He also wants his reader to understand that even though they are their own person they have to take the lives of other into consideration.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with you in the sense that Vonnegut wanted to portray how selfish people can be. However, I dont agree that Vonnegut would add this quote to show how people "value their lives and no one elses." I think its more focused on the idea of revenge and satisfaction one gets from imposing violent actions. I believe that someone can be selfless for certain people, yet still lust for revenge. I dont think its the superiority factor that effects Lazzaro, its is personal things that you inflict upon him. Vonnegut being against war- wouldnt support the idea of prioritizing your life over someone elses. Essentially, that is what happens in war, and its not something that can be controlled. Vonnegut adds Lazzaros to the text emphasize why he is anti-war, because all this character illustrates is cruel,brutal, paradoxical ideals.
Delete“You should have seen what I did to a dog one time… Son of a bitch bit me… I threw him the steak (filled with knives)…Blood started coming out of his mouth.. I laughed.”
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Does Vonnegut add these type of brutalities to highlight the cruelty of war, and the ignorance of people that create war?
I am bothered by this passage immensely. I think that Vonnegut is expressing the vulgarity of what war creates. I can relate this back to the text, when the Tralfamadorians stated that there was no possible way to change war, it is inevitable. People like Lazzaro, are the ones who create war, the ones who make it inevitable and hostile. Lazzaro stated “Anybody who touches me, he better kill me, Or I’m gonna have him killed” (139). It is sad to see that this mentality can extend to as far as a dog. Lazzaro glorified violence and senseless actions through his paradoxical ideals and the ultimate prize that this will get him, is the sweet victory of revenge. Revenge, he says, is the sweetest thing in life. I can classify his mentality as ignorant and paradoxical, because he roots all his decisions from the origin of violence and revenge, what one does to him MUST be done back. It is clear that you cannot make any logical decisions based off of something that only creates chaos and brutality. This dog, was most likely frightened, when Lazzaro approached him with the steak again he stated that the dog believed his friendliness. This can be a supporting idea as to why Vonnegut was anti-war and what war accomplished- cruelty, death- nothing good. Its people like Lazzaro, people who do things like kill for revenge that essentially format war. War, is inevitable, as is the inhumanness of people. It is most evident, that these types of passages are written to open the perspective of wars cruelty.
“They had been sworn into the army a day before. They were men and boys past middle age, and two veterans who had been shot to pieces in Russia.” (149)
ReplyDeleteWhen we go to war we always envision proud, brave soldiers. Strong young men and women properly trained, and heavily armed. They are the conquerors, the prestigious, those who will lead our people to victory. Such is not the nature of war. In a true war between to countries (one in which the United States has not engaged in since World War II) these valiant heroes do exist, but they do not stand alone. When a country is threatened, and as is such with all wars, the fighters stop being merely trained soldiers. The more the enemy pushes in, the farther our definition of soldier is pushed. While during peacetimes a woman assembling a bomb was preposterous, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor it became a necessity. Such is the necessity of war. With constant civilian bombings, those who are not fit to be soldiers are simply put on guard duty. A task not exceptionally dangerous for these men, but still more so than any peacetime occupation, or even an occupation where the enemy is quite near. With the US soon to overtake Japan, the military fell upon its final defense. Every man woman and child would participate in a suicide charge against the invaders. They planned to use rocks and pointed sticks. This last measure was slapped out of Japan by a terrible hand- Fatman and LIttleboy. Such is the evil of war.