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..."
"It was dropping 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 the people on the ground."(168)
ReplyDeleteThis is showing what actual people are in war. This is somewhat ironic that the author that wrote the book about the robots, decided to use war as the main topic considering what was going on in society that day. He's saying that people in war had no conscience and were not able to if they really wanted to participate in it. Earlier on in the book the Tralfamadorians said that people were machines. This is referring to the fact that people do what they are told and follow by it. This is exactly what he is saying by call these people "robots" It's almost a constant metaphor and it is very ironic. The question is, does Vonnegut feel this way about humans and war?
I feel as if Vonnegut is demonstrating the people often get distracted with the idea of fighting for a greater cause and as a result forget their humanity and become heartless sacrificing hundreds of thousands of human lives. As we discussed in class, often times war is considered a justification for a bigger message, but regardless of the reason I believe that Vonnegut is trying to convey that this "idea" overpowers the morality of humankind. We shouldn't turn into inhumane "robots" who just slaughter and have no emotional reference to turn to. We are humans with consciences and we should use them.
DeleteI wrote about something similar in my post. I used the quote, "One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discourages from being characters”(208-209). This quote shows that war can impose thoughts into soldiers, who are children, that cause them to do inhumane things. They no longer have the freedom to think for themselves, and because of war, they are no longer able to. War converts children into robots and machines because of its cruel characteristics.
DeleteI feel like when he refers to humans as robots he means that we are all predictable. Moreover, humans do what there told rather then what they think is right a majority of the time. Bombing all these people is absurd and no rational human would want to do something like this, however, like the common saying "orders are orders", we do what we are told to do. Henceforth we might as well be robots.
Delete"Unexpectedly, Billy Pilgrim found himself upset by the song and the occasion. He had never had an old gang, old sweethearts and pals, but he missed one anyway...His mouth filled with the taste of lemonade and his face became grotesque, as thought he really were being stretched on the torture engine called the rack." (173)
ReplyDeleteBilly's odd yet strong reaction to this song interested me. I admit, at first glance, I read it over as if it was insignificant, but after reading it thoroughly once more I realized it symbolized so much. Billy's reaction to this song symbolizes the price that soldiers must pay after they give themselves up to war. It symbolizes the loneliness and depression that lingers long after they have "escaped" from being prisoners of war. It symbolizes that even after these soldiers are released from war, have no clue as to how they must carry on with the normal life or the regular routine. Billy is so miserable after hearing this song because it speaks of humanity at its best- love peace and prospering friendships; but he can not understand this even though he longs to. He can not understand all these bright aspects of life because after experiencing war, it seems as if he has only witnessed the worst aspects of humanity. He has witnessed the death of many- his enemies, innocent peers, young children and even his closest friends.This song hits Billy hard because after really listening to the lyrics, he realizes that he no longer understands genuine happiness and can never truly experience everlasting joy described in the song.
I totally agree with you. Another evidence we find about the reason why Billy shows that he has no idea how to carry on with his life is that he shows that he is not that good of a parent. On page 176 says, " Billy liked him, but didn't know him very well." Robert his son was not really close to Billy. This was due to the effects war had on BIlly. Billy concentrated too much on what had happened to war that he didnt have time to pay attention to what was happening around him.
Delete“There are almost no characters in this story, and almost no dramatic confrontations…One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discourages from being characters”(208-209).
ReplyDeleteWhat are the repercussions of war?
Vonnegut blatantly breaks the forth wall speaking directly to the reader about the side effects of war. He uses a story/writing to show this. A story is interesting when there are dramatic characters that we feel connected to and have a plot to follow. But for those affected by war, it is impossible to have a story worth hearing. The cruel and inhumane nature of war converts masses of people into thoughtless mobs without individual character. Vonnegut is saying that war sucks the life out of those hurt by it. I think this is part of the reason Vonnegut had such a hard time telling his story of war. Because he experienced it first hand, his own character had been taken away from him. He was brainwashed by the horrid nonsense of it, and is unable to tell a story when there is no character left in him.
I think what you are saying here is absolutely true and with that said I absolutely agree with your points. This has a lot to what I and some others were discussing in class about his breaking of this fourth wall. I find that he constantly needs to remind us that he is writing this book and not Billy. Billy has very specific views on war being that he sees it as just "being." Vonnegut on the other hand is deeply connected to not only the physical but the mental toll that war takes on a man. It is said and witnessed that men come back home dead. Not literally but figuratively in that they are not the same men that they left as. They have transformed. And the war has literally as Vonnegut says, taken the character out of people. It makes me wonder about myself, I know that I am a character, and although that may be too much for some people, I wonder how war would take a toll on me as a person. What would I come back as? Who would I be? Where would my present go?
Delete"He had supposed for years that he had no secretes from himself. Here was proof that he had a great big secrete somewhere inside, and he could not imagine what it was." 173
ReplyDeleteIt's is interesting to find someone like Billy who is suffering from PDST, to discover that he is hiding something from himself. This sentence was very difficult for me to understand because it made no sense. How can you possibly hide something from yourself? Billy did and he remembered it by the son that was played in his 18th anniversary. In my understanding when someone hides something it is because they are embarrassed to show it to others. If this is true is Billy embarrassed about surviving the war? Billy is confronting himself and his memories when he says this and it is nice to see this change of realization. Billy goes back to the memory he has when Dresden was bombed. He gives us new information to what had happened. This shows the awakening of him with what had happened in the war. I found it curious that when Valencia asked him about war he escaped it, but when Montana asked for a story (nothing related to war) he told her what had happened in war. I think he opens to Montana because he had finally confront his ideas with war
"Nobody talked much as the expedition crossed the moon. There was nothing appropriate to say. One thing was clear: Absolutely everybody in the city was supposed to be dead..." (180).
ReplyDeleteThis was an amazing quote in my opinion in that it was very relatable. It brought up the reality of the question, what does one say during death? It's a curious question, one would want to ask how those in relation are, apologize for the unfortunate event(s), celebrate/talk about the life in past. This may be true, but it is also devastating in my view, to know the truth that life simply goes on and after a certain amount of time, people forget, and live without being affected by this death of the centuries past. It is a reality that strikes fear in me. This being because I fear that no one will remember me after I die. I find that almost everyone is afraid of death, of course saying this, I am as well. That being said it gives one closure to know that you will be remembered in the after. Although that may be true, this memory is not immortal. As time goes on, this memory dies, and I will become irrelevant. I suppose that it gives me great confidence and pleasure to know the possibility that the Tralfamadorians created by Vonnegut put forth, that "all time is all time" and with that my life is on a constant cycle and with that, I never experience death.
I find it interesting that you focused your post on relating the quote to your own life (I think that shows you really understood the quote if you were able to apply to your life)! I think that what you fear most about death is what Billy fears as well- he has seen the deaths of many people, ones unimportant and important to him, the deaths of good people, and the deaths of people he would never expect to be hit by death, and most likely fears their lives will be forgotten, and time will make them, as you said, irrelevant. Like Edgar Derby, for example. He was important to Billy- a strong character with a strong sense of morality. He meant so much to him, that is is understandable why Billy would want him to be remembered and always there (like the Tralfamadorians believe). I find it interesting that you too, find comfort in the ideas of the Tralfamadorians, which is possibly the same reason Billy came up with these ideas in the first place (assuming that Billy created the Tralfamadorian world in his mind).
DeleteI loved that you were able to connect the quote with your thoughts specifically. Something that the 'all time is all time' quote made me think of is that you cannot change the inevitable outcome of things, and it just is what it is. That's really what I always think of when it comes to death. I think this philosophy goes hand in hand with the Tralfamadorian philosophy. I also think this could relate to Billy with his survivor's guilt, in the sense that he couldn't change the inevitable outcome of the war.
Delete"'Yes.' Trout supposed that Billy had some complaint about the way his newspaper's were being delivered. 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).
ReplyDeleteTrout is an author of very interesting novels never credited for their excellence. The reason being that the world would not accept something so strange and unique. This ideology connects to Vonnegut's connection of human beings and robots. Most humans tend to be generic and predictable, we usually don't accept change. Consequently, we act like robots, "It was dropping 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 the people on the ground."(168) Trout isn't accepted by the world because the world is inhabited by robots.
I definitely loved what you explained here, Barak. Change is hard for some, whether it'd be something like, say, a change in location of where you live or a change in school. People have become so used to one thing that a sudden change is just not their cup of tea. I feel like this is why Slaughterhouse Five is getting such praise for being a highly different book than others. Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five is an anti-war book, and many people keep quiet about such touchy subjects. Also, he literally explains most of his book in the first twenty pages of his own book, something people rarely see coming from authors.
DeleteTo respond to both of you I think the robots, and Vonnegut is using them to represent that there is this one way of mind and these "robots" represent that. I also agree with both of you that radical thoughts people can fin threatening because its a change. I disagree with Klajdi, in saying that Slaughterhouse Five is a popular book because its an anti-war book, meaning it touches on kept quiet subjects. Rather I believe that this book is so popular because Vonnegut introduces ideas of the norm and how because everyone strides to be this one way and think these things they become robots. Vonnegut also talks about how hard change is for a society and points out that people need to stop being robots and accept change.
DeleteI think how Vonnegut describes the men who bombed Dresden as "robots" without conscience or human empathy shows how disgusted he is by war and this event specifically. To say someone is devoid of feeling and humane remorse is a heavy but very fitting description in this case. Vonnegut argues that the men who dropped the bombs on Dresden did not question their task nor did they ponder the cataclysm they just caused. For if they were to imagine what was happening to the people on the ground, or if people were to realize the cruelties they impose on others, they would go crazy with remorse and grief. Vonnegut argues that in the moment of utter destruction, the destroyer is no longer human, but a machine. A machine who does not look down.
Delete"American fighter planes came in under the smoke to see if anything was moving...they saw some other people moving down by the riverside and they shot at them... The idea was to hasten the end of the war" (180).
ReplyDeleteWhat is Vonnegut saying about the irony of war?
When I first read this sentence, it struck me as ironic. War is a horrible event that anyone would want to end as soon as possible, to "hasten" the end of it, which is what Vonnegut says the American fighter planes were trying to do. However, "hastening" the end of the war here includes killing anyone in sight to clear out the war zone and anyone involved in it. This struck me as ironic because isn't one of the greatest issues of war all the deaths that occur? I saw this way of hastening wars end more of a way of continuing it. Vonnegut's tone also suggests irony- he tells us about the American fighter planes killing anyone in sight ("so it goes" following that), and after that I expect him or Billy to comment on how wrong the situation is, or even not comment on it and leave the reader to understand this. Instead, he says "the idea was to hasten the end of the war". "Hastening the end of the war" strongly contrasts the American fighter planes killing whoever they spot. The first line (about the shootings) clearly shows a bad situation, while the second line is something that anyone would want- putting the two together puts emphasis on the irony of war.
I don't entirely agree that it's ironic because I think that one of the motivations for going into war, is to defeat the enemy completely not necessarily makes peace with them. I interpreted this quote, as a broader idea to highlight the horror of war, and how we become numb to relentlessly killing. This is exemplified today, with video games, where killing is casual and there is no morality.
DeleteI also don't agree with this statement that the deaths that occur in war are ironic. I thinks war is waged to protect the country fighting or allies of the country. War is waged to end the reign of an oppressive group of people. Killing is necessary at points in war. In war there will always be a point where you must kill people to get to the end of that war. Personally I think that if the war needed to be hastened then it makes sense why it was.
Delete"And nobody held it against him that he dropped jellied gasoline on people. But they found his halitosis unforgivable. But then he cleared that up, and he was welcomed to the human race" (168)
ReplyDeleteI found this quote very interesting because I believe it says a lot about Vonnegut and how he sees others view of the human race. This quote talks about how this one person who looked different wasn't let into the human race because he had a flaw, a disease where he looked different. Vonnegut writes how its not because he kills people with big machines that he isn't accepted, rather that he is different. This quote makes me question at this time was human life such a nonchalant thing to destroy? If someone isn't judged or condemned for murder of human life than what is that also saying about human nature and our judgements? They judged because he looked different, but once he changed his appearance he was accepted yet he never stopped killing.
I agree with you on Vonnegut's view of human race. But another question comes in mind when you talked about how he's not accepted in human race because of killing people, but because he just looked different : What is Vonnegut trying to portray with this ironic passage?. I really feel like this passage itself is ironic, because it's actually telling the hidden truth of how we earthlings are. Bringing this big idea of how smaller things can over power our human nature and our judgements.
DeleteI also found this passage really interesting and agree with you on how Vonnegut is trying to portray how human life at times can be insignificant to human beings themselves. What I also thought what Vonnegut was trying to say here is how he changed to fit in and conform, and maybe the message here is if a vast amount people believe in something then that will become the norm. For example, people who have a certain religion will be very righteous and hold their stance on their opinions, sometimes resulting in war. Also, I find it funny how the definition of human being comes from other human beings, and this is quote is a perfect example of humans defining what they think is normal and what isn't , in this case his halitosis.
Delete"Father," she said. "What are going to do with you?" And so on. "You know who I could just kill?" she asked.
ReplyDelete"Who could you kill?" said Billy.
"That Kilgore Trout," (page 166).
Why is there so much insensitivity coming from his daughter?
I think Vonnegut is trying to get out a message about cultures. He has seen horrible things in World War II, and she is showing a rather abrasive side of herself at the moment. His daughter completely disrespects his beliefs by saying she wants to kill Kilgore Trout. This is partly true with her harsh distaste for him, especially since Billy is his fellow companion and fan of his books. She also acts completely oblivious to Billy's PTSD when she uses the word "kill" in that sadistic tone. I think Vonnegut's point here was that she was inexperienced. She represents someone in our society, where the cruciality of violence isn't understood among most people. Does Billy's daughter represent something else as well?
I agree with you. I think that Billy's daughter represents the group of people who are inexperienced toward war. I think that since she hasn't really experienced violence the way Billy has, it is easier for her to say words such as kill. However, I think that if she was actually in a war, and was faced with the events and choices that Billy faced, she would see that word in a completely different light. I don't she would ever threaten to "kill" a person again, because she would've seen how atrocious killing and violence can be.
DeleteI agree with both you guys somebody that has not experienced violence can't relate to it the way somebody like Billy can. It is usually hard for people that was in war to talk about it.
Delete" One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters. But old Derby was a character now." ( 164)
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this line, I felt like Vonnegut just gave me his full experience of war, in just one line. This line to me gave a new meaning to what war is really like for many men who go into it and come back out with either good or bad effects. I thought this line defines how war dehumanizes men, practically their characters. In others words Vonnegut may be saying that war discourages men to be human. They go into war and see death face to face with no doubt that each day there is a possibility that they might die. And I think that feeling makes them become detached from the world and life itself. War doesn't give men a reason to live, but it gives them a reason to give up on life. So, when Derby stood up to Campbell, he humanized himself, by having a reason to live after all.
"She couldn't send Billy out for ice cream or strawberries, since the atmosphere outside the dome was cyanide, and the nearest strawberries and ice cream were millions of light years away. She could send him to the refrigerator, which was decorated with the blank couple on the bicycle for two- or, as now, she could wheedle, "Tell me a story, Billy boy."" (179).
ReplyDeleteHow does Vonnegut connect experiences on Tralfamadore with experiences in war?
This passage stood out at first because I found it quite sad. To not have a simple pleasures of a human, such as strawberries and ice cream while pregnant. I then realize that, as with a lot of other Tralfamadorian experiences, it was paralleled with war. In war, simple pleasures are taken away from you. This lack of an entire aspect of human life caused soldiers to compensate with stories- like we were talking about in class, a specific example might be Lazzaro's dog story. He compensates for his lack of masculinity with scary, murderous, 'manly' stories. A better example might actually be to question whether Billy is actually time travelling or not. Maybe he is filling in his life with excitement to compensate for the unhappiness he had in the war, not literally moving through time.
"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." (167)
ReplyDeleteI feel as though Kurt Vonnegut makes the connection between the personalities in war, and how they act when not dealing with the consequences war comes with. What I feel Mr. Kurt Vonnegut is trying to state with this short little part from the book is, sadly, those who typically have and/or share the point of view where anybody, who doesn't follow their morals, think they do not deserve to have the finer things in life. There is nothing wrong with caring for the people around you, but when you manipulate them by taking what they don't have and shove it in their face saying "I'm better than you," that's when it becomes a problem. In my opinion, Kurt Vonnegut is kind of saying that this feeling of superiority comes or "grows from the ground" naturally. It is natural for one to feel superior than the other.
"Unexpectedly, Billy Pilgrim found himself upset by the song and the occasion. He had never had an old gang, old sweethearts, and pals, but he missed one anyway" (172).
ReplyDeleteWhat strikes me about this passage is that after reading it I get a sense of unity from it. Although Vonnegut is protesting war in this book, I think he might trying to tells us something: that during the circumstances of war, people start to become closer with one another, and they help each other out. I think that it's interesting how since Billy and Derby are both POWs together, Derby find its necessary, before he even knows who Billy is to read to him and stay with him in the hospital. Also, how Billy gives Derby some of the syrup from the vat, Billy could have easily not given Derby any, yet he was inclined to because he feels a sense of unity with Derby. It's interesting, because in real life (outside the war), these people wouldn't have been friends with each other, yet here they seem really close, looking out for one another. I think that what Vonnegut maybe trying to say is that the morally righteous people band together during war, helping each other out. These morally right actions provided a sense of unity between all of those people during war.
I wholly agree. I think that this idea of unity in war also connects to the theme of equality, relating to Vonnegut's views as a humanist. He constantly calls soldiers 'human beings', because he believes that we are all equal no matter what, and maybe through this motif of unity in war he is saying that war brings out this equality in humans and makes them realize they are not all so different. As you said, these people would never befriend each other outside of the army, because there is this sense of unequality outside of this. However, in this state of war and mutual sufferring, they see each other as what they are: human beings.
Delete"Blue is for the 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."
ReplyDeleteI believe Vonnegut is saying that everything has a certain representation whether it's positive or negative. He uses white and blue as kind of holy colors while red is being represented as violence and gore. This quote actually seems like Campbell is talking about independence, (like the American revolution), and uses the colors to describe it. The quote is a description of what Vonnegut felt during WW2 and used America as a specific example for the colors since they make up the nations flag.
" 'You're going to have to fight the communists sooner or later,' said Campbell. 'Why not get it over with now?' "(163-164)
ReplyDeleteAt first, Campbell tries to convince the American soldiers to fight on the same side as the Germans against the Russians and I am thinking, "this is ridiculous, what an outlandish thing to propose; not one of the soldiers will accept!". But, of course, Vonnegut follows this with the quotation above to make us catch ourselves redhanded: In the Cold War, we (America) do fight the Russians "sooner" rather than later- Campbell was telling the truth. The irony in the quotation above is this: How can an American Nazi- which is backward to say the least- foresee our inevitable fight against the Russians (who were quazi-allies at the time), but we cannot? All the American soldiers are thinking about is surviving WWII.
In addition, Campbell offers the soldiers "steaks, mashed potatoes, and mince pies" if they would enlist in the "Free American Corps" to fight the Russians. They soldiers do not accept. Derby even calls Campbell a "snake" and a "blood-filled tick" and talks about the Russian and American "Brotherhood" that will destroy Nazism. Though we root for Derby's optimism and his stand against evil Mr. Campbell, Vonnegut orchestrates this purposefully. He does it to show that we want to root for good, even when the man who is telling the truth- even the unfortunate truth we may not want to accept- is evil and twisted
Oh I forgot to write the question: What is Vonnegut saying about the inevitability of Campbell's statement? What is he saying about 'Truth' and its significance?
Delete"'Blue is for the 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,'" (page. 163)
ReplyDeleteQ: Does Vonnegut create several characters to represent a bigger idea?
I find it interesting that Vonnegut will create characters to get his implicit message across. For example Howard W. Campbell, who was an American and became a Nazi. He is giving a speech to the Americans and states the passage above, which I thought was significant since he is basically saying how America is so destructive. Also, how patriots shed blood so "gladly" which can refer to the wars in which America has taken place in and accounted for many deaths. Vonnegut also creates the character of Paul Lazzaro as a metaphor of war and violence. Consequently, throughout the novel I have noticed the many characters who have a certain personality and act a certain way because Vonnegut intended for the reader to speculate further as to why.
"Trout's leading robot looked like a human being, and can talk and dance and so on, and go out with girls. And nobody held it against him that he dropped jellied gasoline on people. But they found his halitosis unforgivable. But then he cleared that up, and he was welcomed to the human race" (168)
ReplyDeleteI am bothered that people will be seduced by someone or something that entertains them and that they like, even though that thing or person can do great damage and hurt them. They will focus on small imperfections, in this case bad breath, and over look that they are killers only because they are likable in a superficial way. I feel this is Vonnegut's way of warning us, to be careful and be critical not of there appearance but of their behavior. Vonnegut demands for us to look deep into people’s real character and not be tricked as one way to avoid war.
I agree with this but I also think that the robots are disguised by the human costumes. This refers to the fact that humans are robots and I wrote about this subject in my post. Also he is saying that people are cruel and war is blinding just like these robots are. The people fighting blind themselves from the truth and it is a major problem.
Delete"Trout incidentally, had written a book about a money tree. It had $20 bill 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.” (213)
ReplyDeleteIs Vonnegut using this tree as a metaphor for war? What is trying to say about money/power and how it relates to war?
I think that Vonnegut included this image of the money tree to illuminate the fact that in many ways, money is essentially the cause of war. Without money, wars simply could not exist because money is the main cause of competition. We are constantly forced against one another to be the best and the brightest, in order to be the richest or most famous. The more aggressive and ruthless the better, money forces humans to be both aggressive and greedy. When he says “It attracted human beings who killed each other around the roots and made very good fertilizer”, he’s speaking to the fact that human beings have caused and created war and essentially we are the ‘root of the problem” because if we were not so attracted to the ideas of greed and competition war would simply not exist. It might be a long shot to say that it would not exist but it would be and extremely less dominant factor in our society. The more killing and bloodshed there I, the more anger and fighting it brings which we cause by ourselves – it is not animals, or aliens from another planet but regular human beings. But yet I wonder if even without the creation of money and competition would we live in a drastically more peaceful world?
"He did not think of himself as a writer for the simple fact that the world had never allowed him to think of himself this way" (169)
ReplyDeleteI think that this quote really shows how people are really judging. People did not like Trouts writer because it was different from everybody else's. He had his own style of writing and the people weren't accepting his new style. This really relates to the Old Man with Wings how everybody was so judge of the angel because they couldn't relate to it. And I think it is the same idea with the Trouts book. _Maximo Castro
I totally agree Max, and I think that's a very interesting point you brought up. We spend so much time in class talking about the same few themes so I think it is very astute of you to bring up the theme of judgment. I think that for so much of this story, Billy Pilgrim is being judged by everyone around him, whether it be based on his looks, his intelligence, his philosophies, or many other factors. And I think the reason Billy is so harshly judged by everyone is because he does fit the societal views he is expected to. This relates to what we talked about right when we started the book, the question of why Vonnegut chose to have illy be his protaganist. I think that is so interesting because by asking that question alone, aren't we just judging Vonnegut's choices?
Delete"God is listening, too. And on Judgment Day he's going to tell you all the things you said and did. If it turns out they're bad things instead of good things, that's too bad for you, because you'll burn forever and ever. The burning never stops judging" (172).
ReplyDeleteThis struck me as a mildly random thing to say at a party. However, Vonnegut chose to have Trout say this at this time and my question is: why?
Here Trout speaks of good and evil. He tells this lady about how if she's done more bad things in her life than good things, she will burn forever, no questions asked. Vonnegut here is, in my opinion, trying to say something about what one does in their lifetime. Does saying bad things and doing bad things throughout one's life justify their maker to burn them for eternity? And on that note, what divides good and bad? Who decides this line? Are there exceptions? Why? How?
What I believe Vonnegut is trying to do is to connect this concept of good and evil back to the concept of war. I know that I, personally,, while thinking about Trout's advice's, cannot help but think about how this applies to Billy and his life, and by extent to Vonnegut and his life. Billy's done bad things. As have Derby, Rosewater, and Vonnegut. However, I think that what Vonnegut is saying is either that Trout's conjecture is incorrect, or that there must be exceptions, because these men do not deserve an eternity burning.
"It turned out that the person who had written this letter was Eliot Rosewater, Billy's friend in the veterans' hospital near Lake Placid. Billy told Trout about Rosewater. "My God--I thought he was about fourteen years old," Said Trout
ReplyDeleteI thought the mention of Rosewater helps the reader see the type of person that Billy is. Billy becomes friends with Eliot and Kilgore. He finds them to be great, kind people and doesn't see them as being insane. Although they don't look like it, I see these trio as a perfect group of insane men. They all have these absurd beliefs about time travel. They share so many common characteristics. Eliot and Billy were the only two people in the world to contact Kilgore Trout. This shows how these men are in a separate category from everyone else on Earth due to there mind-boggling thoughts. Another things that strikes me is that every Kilgore believes that Eliot was a 14 year-old. Kilgore believes that Eliot is a child with childish thoughts. This is the man that Billy is friends with and this really shows how Billy is possibly a crazed man with childish thoughts.