.jpg)
What passages stand out to you from Chapter 10? What connections can you make to the previous chapters? Why return to Vonnegut's life and perspective in Chapter 10? Why integrate his war story with Billy's? Why would Vonnegut, in trying to make sense of and write truthfully about his war experience, choose this story (aliens, Billy) as his way to write about war? Any hints from returning to Chapter 1/reading about about his writing process?
Please try to answer at least one of these questions, or ask a BIG question of your own. Make sure you start your reflection with a passage. Also, make sure that you respond to someone else.
"The Population Reference Bureau predicts that the world's total population will double to 7,000,000,000 before the year 2000. 'I supose they will all want dignity,' I said.
ReplyDelete'I suppose,' said O'Hare," (212).
I think that Vonnegut is expressing his distaste for the lack of significance that death and war hold. I think that he means that the people of the world will be happy (or dignified) that the population has reached seven billion, when really, they will just be more people. When theres more of something, the less importance that certain thing may hold, and thats what would happen. People would try to dignify themselves when thousands of people die everyday. Although it may seem unimportant to that person, it is important to another. In addition, within O'Hare's notebook, it also says: "On average, 324,000 new babies are born into the world everyday.During that same day, 10,000 persons, on an average, will have starved to death or died from malnutrition," (212). The number of deaths to births is significantly lower, but that doesn't mean we can completely ignore it. However, this is what humans do anyway, which leads to the statement about "dignity." I enjoyed this book, honestly. It perfectly captured the way Vonnegut felt about war without a boring lecture. What did you guys think about it?
I liked Slaughterhouse Five too. I think it is a very good anti-war novel that makes statements about lots of different topics ranging from religion to revenge. I agree that its wrong for people to feel dignified and self-important while others are dying. But i think Vonnegut may also mention "dignity" because dignity is often taken away in war, especially if you become a prisoner. Maybe Vonnegut says, "I suppose they will all want dignity" to also say, I suppose they will want the dignity of peace, not the inhumanity of war.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"My father died many years ago now--of natural causes. So it goes. He was
ReplyDeletea sweet man. He was a gun nut, too. He left me his guns. They rust." pg.
210
I chose this quote because I think it represents Vonnegut's stance on war
as a humanist and anti-war advocate. These few sentences show that
Vonnegut made a choice not to follow in his father's footsteps and use
weapon like guns. He has the power, the free will, to break the cycle of
accepted violence and war by letting the guns rust. In chapter 1, Vonnegut
expresses a similar sentiment. He writes, "I have told my sons that they
are not under any circumstances to take part in massacres, and that the
news of massacres of enemies is not to fill them with satisfaction or
glee." pg. 19. Even in the first chapter of Slaughterhouse Five, Vonnegut
is showing readers an example, a way to prevent war in the future and make
the world a less self-destructive place. In class we talked about how
there is no free will in war, but I think, and believe Vonnegut thinks,
that after wars are over we can choose to take action, working towards
peace for ourselves and our children.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFrancesca I really like the point you make about free will after war, that even though Vonnegut didn't have free will as a soldier, once he was free his will was free because he choose to use a weapon or not. Vonnegut must also believe that if we all just decided to do as he has, which is letting the guns rust, can eventually lead to less violence in society and maybe even less wars. I also feel like Vonnegut is trying to say that even though war cannot be avoided, what can be avoided is the number of people who support war. If we have less violence in our daily lives this can lead to less violent people, less people that think that war is ok. As Vonnegut has tried to show us with Weary, a violent childhood leads to a violent person, who eventually believes that killing someone else for the sake of war is fine. Vonnegut wants us to see that even though we might think that we cannot do anything to stop war, we actually can. By educating, caring, and showing future generations how to be more humane, can all result in a more peaceful world. All those people who want to kill and act so tough are sometimes the most vulnerable people, so we have to show those people who feel vulnerable that violence is not the way to go.
DeleteI agree and i really like the part of this quote that says "He left me his guns. They rust". I think that this means how his memory or war and also his father are slowly rusting away, going away. I also think this means that BIlly was never the right person for war because if he used the gun then it would not have rusted but he did not use the guns. The guns represent violence and war to Billy and Billy chose not to go near it because he hated war and so did Vonnegut.
DeleteFrancesca, I completely agree with you when you say that while there is no free will in war, people can make choices if/when they go back home: "We asked him how it was to live under Communism, and he said that it was terrible at first, because everybody had to work so hard, and because there wasn't much shelter or food or clothing. But things were much better now. He had a pleasant little apartment, and his daughter was getting an excellent education. His mother was incinerated in the Dresden fire-storm. So it goes" (1-2). This proves that despite the trauma and conflicts that people face in war, they have the option to turn it around. This man's life was terrible in the war, and he was affected in more ways than one. This man is able to find happiness in life even though his mother was killed and that he had to live with meager resources. As we know, Vonnegut is strictly against war; he finds it to be inevitable murder. However, it is also evident that he has opinions about life after war.
DeleteThis is very well said Francesca. I completely agree with you with your last statement saying that after war we can choose to find peace with ourselves and our children. I feel like more than anything not only are the people who fight in the war are hurt but their families too. And after pushing through so much and fighting to keep themselves alive and obeying orders. They come home to be around their family and see their children and wives. They now how all the time in the world to choose to fix themselves to remember their life before the war. Back to remembering the good times.
Delete
ReplyDeletePassage:
"Robert Kennedy whose summer home is eight miles from the home I live in all year round, was shot two nights ago. He died last night. So it goes.
Martin Luther King was shot a month ago. He died, too. So it goes.
And every day my Government gives me a count of corpses created by military science in Vietnam. So it goes.
My father died many years ago now—f natural causes. So it goes."
This passage stood out to me because of all the "So it goes" that Vonnegut decides to include in this last chapter. All throughout the book Vonnegut has always said "So it goes" after anything that dies, and all along I have thought that this is Vonnegut's way of showing us how inhumane we can be when others die. I felt that by him saying "So it goes" he was trying to use satire to show us how wrong we are, but when I saw "So it goes" after all the people he lists in this chapter that die I think he means to say more. I think he is trying to show us that it is part of life for things to die. No matter who it is or what it is, things die all the time anywhere and everywhere. Whether its someone as famous as Robert Kennedy or Martin Luther King, or just someone's family member, death happens and it hurts all the same. Just because someone might not be as important or significant to you, doesn't mean that, that person's life won't go unmissed by someone else. Death is all around us and it cannot be avoided, just like war cannot be avoided. Even on Tralfamador Billy is told that the Tralfamadorians blow up the universe, and that there's nothing that can be done to stop it, that is what is meant to happen and what will always happen. "So it goes" is just a way of moving on with our own lives, but doesn't necessarily mean that a death hasn't caused us pain. Humans will always die and it is something we must learn to live with. In war massive numbers of people die and we must learn to deal with the death of so many people on our conscience because war cannot be avoided so these deaths will not avoided. Even without war people still would die. Even though sometimes we subconsciously or not subconsciously ignore the fact that death is happening all around us all the time, the truth is that it is always happening. The only difference between death in war and death in our daily life, is that in war death is more obvious and in massive numbers most of the time.
"that we will allLive forever, no matter how dead we may seem to be, I am not overjoyed” (211).
ReplyDeleteI chose this quote because I thought it really explained Vonnegut’s general thoughts on war, and his belief that in reality war brings out the pains and suffering that should never be experienced, which far surpass the horrid thought of death. I also thought it connected to the image of him in the baseball park preaching his knowledge on Tralfamadorian knowledge saying, “if you think death is a terrible thing, then you have not understood a word I’ve said” (142). This all connects in Vonnegut’s whole point of writing the book, to prove that war is beyond misery. War makes death, one of the most feared things in the world seem okay, he wants people to understand that war is full of bullies, cruelties, and killers. War is more than just blood; it eliminates the idea of family, love, and friendship. In war there are no rules to stop the suffering of another, and for what expense. Nothing in the world is equal to the sacrifices caused by war, and sometimes people don’t know what they’re fighting for. I believed Vonnegut was trying to explain this idea, but then I thought: why include aliens and time travel when trying to get across such an important and pain filled idea? Then I went back to the beginning of the book, and as Vonnegut explains his hard time drafting his book, he says his best draft was on the back of wallpaper in crayon and that “the blue line met the red line and then the yellow line and stopped because the character represented by the yellow line was dead”(5). Essentially he was saying, war makes no sense and the acts taken in war just seem so random it’s hard to follow. Therefore, I believe that Vonnegut wrote the book with aliens, to describe how stupid and extreme our actions can be. How little sense can be made while describing war because the actions taken by people are so confusing and make so little sense. Thus, Vonnegut describes looking at the actions of war as alienated and non-human. That such atrocious and horrendous actions are non-human, they have no sense of emotion and lack every aspect of being human. Thus, Vonnegut portrays the horrific and foreign ideas/deeds preformed in war.
I completely agree with you. I think that Vonnegut's main idea of wa is that all it brings is death. I also think that he includes the Tralfamadorians because he wanted to show how war is very unrealistic and extreme. This reminds me of when the Tralfamadorians talk about how they are going to blow up Earth and destroy it. I think of this because it supports Vonnegut's idea of war being extreme and only bringing death.
DeleteI thought the same thing about war bringing out suffering. I think he does use Tralfamadore to show war's unrealistic and extreme ways. However, Vonnegut using aliens also connects to Billy's experience in war as well. When the aliens abduct him, Billy questions why him and they respond "there is no why". The same thing happened to the American who got punched in the face for asking why, and the German responded, "Vy you, Vy anybody". The same goes for Billy being trapped in both the geodesic dome and in the slaughterhouse. Billy never really gets any peace from both his fantasy and reality, which shows the effect war has on suffering.
Delete"There were hundreds of corpse mines operating by and by. They didn't smell bad at first, were wax museums. But then the bodies rotted and liquified , and the stink was like roses and mustard gas."(214)
ReplyDeleteI thought that this quote really showed what Vonnegut thinks about war, death, and soldiers. Vonnegut clearly shows his opinions on war through out the book, and he hates it. Vonnegut just thinks war is pointless and the only thing it does is kill people and cause more conflict and hatred between people. This quote says there were hundreds of corpse mines which means thousands maybe millions of people who have died because of war. Also the boiling water tower where school girls were being boiled, war is just violent and pointless. The soldiers fighting in this war are brain washed and they think they are doing good things by killing others. In the quote it says the bodies didn't smell bad at first and this could mean that at first the soldiers killing people did no realize what they were doing. But then after the bodies rot and start to smell the soldiers look back and realize all the bad they have done. Also Vonnegut describes the smell of the bodies as mustard gas, which is a gas that was used in war to poison people, I think that Vonnegut did this because he wanted to show how all these people were violently killed and it was all because of the war and if the war had never happened then non of those deaths would have happened.
I definitely agree, but I think this is to "on the sufrace" and not enought that we've really identified. First I think that clearly wanted people to not only imagine this seen of death, but rather smell it and see it. He not only offered imagery but also include a sense of smell which further brings to life this scene/event. As you said mustard gas was used to kill people in WW2 and so I think Vonnegut wanted us to feel and smell this idea of death. Vonnegut wants to prove that even if don't think we don't know much about death, war surely has imbedded the image of death in Vonnegut's mind. War has caused Vonnegut to witness so much death, that he can describe its odor, its appearance and its effect on people. It is almost mocking us saying that death, this beyond realm for people, has become so common that people can easily identify it. An idea that was once a mystery is now something Vonnegut can't get out of his mind, he is surrounded by so much death that he is having to shovel out bodies from these mines filled with them. He is surrounded and buried by the image of death, it is the only thing he can see, and the only thing he can smell. War is death.
Delete"Somewhere in there the poor old high school teacher, Edgar Derby, was caught with a teapot he had taken from the catacombs. He was arrested for plundering. He was tried and shot." (214)
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 1, Vonnegut tells O'Hare of his intrest in making Edgar Derby's death the climax of the book. As we now know, Vonnegut breifly describes his death towards the end of the novel. I think that Vonnegut did this to show how all death is the same and that one is not more tragic than another. He does not make it the climax of the book, and like every other death that occurs, he reacts by simply saying, "So it goes". I also think that Vonnegut makes Derby die in such a way to show the irony of war. The fact that a good man dies just because he steals a meaningless teapot shows how unpredictable and uncontrollable things in life are. Vonnetgut expresses this idea of no control in life in Chapter 1, by saying "There is nothing I can do about it. As an Eathling, I have to believe whatever clocks said- and calenders."(20) I think that this quote influenced Vonnegut's writing style that is used in the novel.
I agree, Edgar Derby's death isn't the climax of the novel. So it goes does generalizes death. It doesn't make one death more significant than another. There wasn't one death in the novel that wasn't followed by "so it goes." Vonnegut is a humanist so we know that he definitely cares about death. But, war is bad and it kills many people. Until we put an end to war "so it goes" is a way Vonnegut represent unnecessary and careless deaths in war.
DeleteI agree with you on the part that Vonnegut is trying to speak to the cruel random madness in war. The fact that Edgar Derby was killed for such a small offense really hits this point home. It is reinforced by the "poo-tee-weet" experience Billy has with the bird. There is no response or reply he can say to the bird, the same goes for war we can not try to understand because it does no make sense! I am not as sure about the point that no death is more important than another. I mean it makes sense Vonnegut does believe that because he is a humanist but I did not get that message in this chapter.But I do agree that the "so it goes" motif does treat all deaths the same. Suggesting all death is equal.
Delete"The earthling figure who is most engaging to the Tralfamadorian mind, he says, is Charles Darwin-who fought that those who die are meant to die, that corpses are improvements. So it goes"(210).
ReplyDeleteThis quote stood out to me because it ties back with the whole aspect of free-will and war. The Tralfamdorians are not interested in Jesus Christ's message of love. They are more interested in human beings dying, in order to improve mankind. The idea of free will is silly to the Tralfamadorians. Free will means something that happens for a reason. Consequently, the world is made in a way that everything that happens is meant to happen. There's nothing we can do about it, especially when it comes to war. When Dresden was bombed, concern for human feelings was useless, so death and murder were allowed. As Vonnegut wrote, just say "so it goes," and move on. But this whole aspect of just moving on, is not how it has to be. Murdering people is morally wrong, but war blinds human beings from that.
"East Germany was down below, and the lights were on. I imagined dropping bombs on those lights, those villages and cities and towns" (211).
ReplyDeleteWhat is Vonnegut saying about war?
When I read this passage, I was a little bit surprised. The quote shocked me because Vonnegut is completely against war, and it is weird for him to picture himself engaging in such behavior. I realized that Vonnegut is speaking about the absurdity and randomness of war. Before Billy and Vonnegut arrived in Dresden, they were told it was a safe place. After the destruction, it was turned into the "moon", only minerals. This proves that nobody is safe in war, and that there is always harm. Furthermore, it is ridiculous for Vonnegut to be thinking such things. The way he phrases this passage, it sounds almost easy to kill hundreds of thousands of people. The reality is, though, that a person, at one point, was doing exactly what he was imagining. Vonnegut is conveying that there is no sense in war.
I guess that in a way, it is pretty easy to be able to kill thousands of people when you are given that type of power. If you just dropped a bomb over a city, I could understand how you wouldn't automatically feel guilty. Like Isaac said in class one day, you really can't process the fact that 135,000 different lives have been lost. It's the coward way out to just drop a bomb, instead of killing people one by one, because it's less of a burden.
Delete"If what Billy Pilgrim learned from the Tralfamadorians is true, that we will all live forever, no matter how dead we may sometimes seem to be, I am not overjoyed." (211)
ReplyDeleteThis passage stood out to me because it demonstrates Vonnegut's distaste for war. He doesn't want to spend all of his life revisiting moments that have left such bad impacts on his life. It also means that war will always exist, it's human nature and something that can't be stopped. War is only about killing and harming people. It doesn't matter who wins, there are so many lives lost that winning seems so insignificant. Vonnegut hates war that's pretty clear throughout the whole book. He mocks humans for believing that the only way to solve problems is by killing each other. So I understand why the idea of living forever doesn't seem that great. But on the other hand if you live forever you get to revisits moments that are bad and learn from them. You can look back at those moments and realize that fighting is never the answer and how cruel the nature of war really is. Of course you can't really change any of that if you're dead but, you can always learn from them.
"On Tralfamadore, say Billy Pilgrim, there isn't much interest in Jesus Christ"
ReplyDeleteWhat is Vonnegut saying about war and religion?
Vonnegut isn't hating on religion in this quote or the Christian society. Vonnegut is saying that humans worship these idols like Jesus Christ and don't learn anything from him, but follow him anyway. People use people like Jesus Christ to make justice of their wrong doings, claiming they are just following Gods will. Vonnegut is a humanist and thinks we should just do whats right, because of self entitlement, not because of what someone else says. The Tralfamadores like Charles Dickens, and they think "those who die are meant to die". However I don't think Vonnegut would agree with this because he takes life and death more seriously and values life. So why would Vonnegut make these Tralfamadores like Charles Darwin?
I never really thought about it like that, but now I completely agree. People follow their beliefs because they believe it is right. They use that belief against people, not knowing if its right or not. I may not be a humanist but I do believe that you should do things based on self judgement not because you follow someone of something. I also don't why Vonnegut would write a book that goes against his belief as a humanist. There must be a reason.
DeleteBlog#5
ReplyDelete"Everything is supposed to be quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds.
And what do the birds say? All there is to say about a massacre, things like 'Poo-tee-weet?' " (19).
"Birds were talking.
One bird said to Billy Pilgrim, 'Poo-tee-weet?' " (215).
Q: What is left to say after a massacre? Or just Death?
A: When death happens, there is nothing left to say. Usually, you have a feeling of sadness, depression or anger but words are not spoken. After 9/11, people were speechless. Vonnegut raises this question about not being able to speak after death. I feel he uses the birds to symbolize the silentness. Usually, when things are super quiet you hear birds chirping. Vonnegut shows us that there is no way to react to death. He also brings a sense of never forgetting the worst things that happens to us. The birds chirping sound can remind us of the horrible the things that happened in the past and every time you hear that sound you remember. The quiet sound of the birds adds as a reminder that life still happens whether or not death or a massacre has happened. Though you want to forget the bad things, sadly those are the ones you remember the most. Vonnegut tells us Death can never be forgotten no matter how hard you push it away.
I agree with your analysis. I believe he showed the "poo-tee-weet" as a reaction to war on a personal level as well of a grand scale to erase it as an idea. The phrase shows something which stays constant and always happen with no connection to ideas of humans which Vonnegut shows as petty in the context of living together in a species. This connects with your idea that life still goes on after death happens, and I agree with the analysis that this was an idea Vonnegut was trying to explain here. He feels strongly about death and i believe you are correct in saying that it cannot be forgotten in his opinion, using the natural, constant bird noise as a contrary to unnatural fighting in war.
DeleteI agree with you, I believe that after war, chaos, destruction and death- it often leaves people speechless or tremendously effected by the results. After war- there is nothing good to say, there is no benefit from non-justified death, and the desolate silence caused by the birds "poo-tee-weet" can act as a reminder of this horror, it is a marked memory-eternal. The "poo-tee-weet" can also be used to show that time is continuous, and the birds are still chirping and new, pleasureful things are being created at the same time that horrific events can be occurring. Life goes on- and time is inevitable.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis ending to the book brought it full circle as we see motifs from the beginning of the story reflected in the end and after reading through the book we see them differently. I believe the motif of "poo-tee-weet" is used as a reference to natural ideas of birds tweeting, (a constant even through human issues) in contrast to war as an unnatural idea that we weren't meant to create. Vonnegut believes these acts of violence between powers are unnatural to living on this earth as a human and disconnect us from each other as a species. I found this interestingly placed at the end of the book to show major ideas from the book in one simple sentence at the very end. It connects multiple ideas which i have noticed throughout reading this book.
ReplyDeletemy passage was "poo-tee-weet"
DeleteI agree with you. Ending this complicated book with such a simple phrase is an interesting choice. To tie this back to the first chapter, Vonnegut said "all there is to say about massacre are things like 'Poo-tee-weet!'" Vonnegut keeps coming back to this idea, that this book is confusing and strange because it is the only way he can even begin to articulate the insanity of war.
DeletePassage: "They didn't smell bad at first, were wax museums. But then the bodies rotted and liquefied, and the stink was like roses and mustard gas" (214)
ReplyDeleteWhat is Vonnegut trying to represent by using to very distinct smells like roses and mustard gas?
After reading that passage I knew that there had to be some type of meaning behind it besides the mixture of roses and mustard gas being a bad scent. We see the sue of roses and mustard gas appear in the first chapter of Vonnegut's anti-war book. He uses it to describe the breathe that drives his wife away. Then he sues the same description again in chapter four when Billy picks up a phone and can smell the same smell again coming through the phone. Roses usually used an example of romance and love and mustard gas that is used as a chemical weapon and made soldiers get intense itching blisters on exposed skin and their lungs. And if exposed to the eyes the soldiers can become temporarily blind. I am mentioning all this to make the connection between the effects of war and what it does to someone emotionally. Vonnegut says he makes drunken phone calls to ex-girlfriends, when he tells he has a wife. Why would you call up ex-girlfriends if you have a wife who waited for you to come home from war to start your lives together again. Which is my point Vonnegut uses mustard gas and roses to symbolize the terrible effects war has on people emotionally. You don't think straight afterwards. Its like nothing can destroy any more emotionally then what destroyed you out there on the field. The bodies they smelled like roses and mustard gas. Its terrible seeing all those innocent people killed but no one cried but not once does Vonnegut mention someone bursting into tears what he does mention is them digging a deeper hole to shove the dead bodies, the emotions deeper. Into a darker place. A place where no one can question it or think of it. Which is what i think Vonnegut is trying to say that not only does war kill people physically but emotionally and mentally as well. Not only are the people who fight in the war "broken" but there loved ones too. No one comes back the same and seeing someone you love in pain, it's a terrible thing. When Billy could smell the roses and mustard gas coming through the phone he could smell the despair and the sadness. Which is why he hung up because he too was scared. Scared of remembering scared of showing emotions.
“Billy and the rest wandered out onto the shady street. The trees were leafing out. There was nothing going on out there, no traffic of any kind. There was only one vehicle, an abandoned wagon drawn by two horses. The wagon was green and coffin-shaped” (215).
ReplyDeleteThis passage really stood out to me because it strongly juxtaposes all the cruelties during the war we read about in previous chapters. During the war in previous chapters, Vonnegut portrays many harsh situations such as Billy seeing girls being boiled to death. Right now, the war is over and it seems surreal. Vonnegut says that Billy and his group were locked up in a stable “and then, one morning, they got up to discover that the door was unlocked. World War Two in Europe was over” (215). The ending of the war is clearly unexpected to Billy and the others. The passage I chose depicts an unbelievable scene with a glimmer of hope. When Vonnegut mentions the green and coffin-shaped wagon, he alludes to the time Billy and some other prisoners were going back to the slaughterhouse for souvenirs. While he sat on the “jiggling coffin”, Billy had a moment of happiness---“he was warm, there was food in the wagon, a stamp collection…” (194). Vonnegut mentions the same wagon to portray the serenity in that moment they realized the war was over. I think this passage is significant because it shows that even the worst things, in this case war, come to an end. Even though war can come to an end, Vonnegut wants to make sure that no one has to go through something so bad.
I completely agree at first I didn't pay any mind to the coffin shaped Wagon but I start to see the little details Vonnegut puts. When the war is finally over and Billy is free they bring back that Wagon which is the only war scene where Billy shows a little bit of happiness.
Delete"... If i am going to spend eternity visiting this moment and that, I'm grateful that so many of those moments are nice."
ReplyDeleteWhat is Vonnegut trying to say about his time in the war?
Vonnegut almost poses the question to himself, would I want to live the way that Billy Pilgrim lives, traveling around in time, never dying, he says he would not. However he says that if he had to, it would be ok because most of his memories are "nice." This is a surprising thing for him to say after reading Slaughterhouse Five. This book, which we can all assume is semi autobiographical, talks about the horrors of war, of the terrible things that Vonnegut has lived through, what an extreme toll it took on the protagonist Billy, and how it ruined his life. With the statement quoted above Vonnegut is saying that the war did not define him. He is saying with this whole book that so many people fall victim to depression, anxiety, etcetera, etcetera, after the war.Vonnegut never let himself get to that point, he didn't let the war take over his life. Yes the time he spent was terrible, but it doesn't override all that wonderful moments he's had since.
I completely agree with you. Before reading this post, I hadn't really thought about this aspect of the novel. It surprises me that Billy thinks his memories are "nice," given that a lot of his memories are filled with death, starvation, etc. This whole idea that all of his memories from after the war override his memories from the war confuses me because, for many soldiers, those memories are never forgotten, and often cause PTSD. It is clear that Vonnegut really dislikes war, so why does he write his main character as a soldier who contradicts that and says his memories are "nice"?
Delete"I think of how useless the Dresden part of my memory has been, and yet how tempting Dresden has been to write about" (2). I think Vonnegut is trying to show how pointless and stupid war is. But Vonnegut is also trying to get kids informed about how war really is. It's not some cool film. It's innocent kids dying for a war that is not even going to really matter anyway. It's going to be forgotten as if nothing even happened. In the end of the book Billy is trapped in the stable with a few other war guys that have survived. Billy is locked in the stable as a prisoner of war and when the stable is open he is no longer a prisoner he is finally free. The outside world is quiet as if nothing even happened. And people who fought in the war try to move on with their lives as if nothing ever happened and no one is informed and more wars occur. War is not easy to talk about so people don't talk about war at all but I think Vonnegut is trying to end this useless suffering and trying to finally get people informed as best as he can. Vonnegut message is war is pointless it doesn't truly resolve anything. If we have to sacrifice so many lives to just say that we "won" war is not worth it.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but I also believe Vonnegut is trying to say the memory of Dresden to him is useless. All the hardships he faced in the war are useless. The deaths he's seen are useless. The friends he made are useless. The whole memory is useless. Which I don't really agree with. I agree that war is useless, but I disagree that the memory of is. The memory of Dresden is the reason Vonnegut is writing this book, the war opened his eyes to show how useless and cruel it truly is.
Delete"One bird said to Billy Pilgrim, 'Poo-tee-weet'"(215)
ReplyDeleteWhy does Vonnegut include bird noises at the very end of his novel?
In Vonnegut's first chapter, he writes that on the end of his novel, his last words would be "Poo-tee-weet". Why would he write this and not something else about Tralfamadorians or such? The last sentence of any novel is the most important part, it completely summarizes the book, and Vonnegut only includes bird noises. When you think of birds, you would clearly think of morning, unless you think of owls. In every perfect morning, a person wakes up and hears birds by his window. The sounds of birds mean a brand new start, or a start to a new day. After the war is done, after so many deaths, the only thing you hear are birds. Its to show how nothing really matters about the past, even with all your friends gone or anyone really, there is always going to be a new start.
I totally agree with you. Ending this anti-war novel with this phrase is very unique and special choice. Also going back to the chapter one Vonnegut said "all there is to say about massacre are things like 'Poo-tee-weet!'" I believe that he is trying to bring this idea of how the bird talk makes as much sense as anyone who talks about war. He spent a lot of years trying to find the way to talk about the war and talk about his experience with us and that is because there is no nice way you can talk about the war.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI completely agree. The bird saying "Poo-tee-weet" indicates a spark of hope. There is something innocent about the fact that Billy and the others unexpectedly find out that the war is over and the sound of this bird is the only thing they hear at first. Like you said, the bird symbolizes the start of something new. Vonnegut also may have used this bird to portray how something so simple as a bird's noises seems so significant and beautiful, especially after he explains the harsh reality of wars.
DeleteI agree with the point you brought up. There is always a new start and whether something bad happened before you can always grow from the experience. I think this also brings us back to the idea that Vonnegut believes war is dumb, because he doesn't say anything else more insightful at the end. It's a clear demonstration that something as simple as bird noises is a thousand times more intelligent then war.
Delete“The wagon was green and coffin-shaped. Birds were talking. One bird said to Billy Pilgrim,”Poo-tee-weet”?”As Vonnegut warns in the chapter one, there is nothing intelligent to say about war. At the end of the book Vonnegut states how the bird talk makes as much sense as anyone who talks about war. Still, like the bird, Vonnegut has persisted in filling the silence left after the disaster. Even if those stories are meaningless, still they have managed to survive at all in the effects of a war that saw the mass incineration of books as well as of bodies is quite a feat. In addition, Vonnegut has succeeded in describing a thing of beauty out of the shards of senselessness and anguish. In the end, the problem of dignity returns. Every one of thousands of people who are born every day wants dignity. The equalizing power of death brings dignity at a high price. Billy must travel far from this planet to find his own sort of dignity.
ReplyDelete"On Tralfamadore, says Billy Pilgrim, there isn't much interest in Jesus Christ. The Earthling figure who is most engaging to the Tralfamadorian mind, he says, is Charles Darwin- who taught that those who die are meant to die, that corpses are improvements. So it goes." (210)
ReplyDeleteIs Vonnegut conveying his humanistic and atheistic beliefs through Billy Pilgrim and the war?
Charles Darwin is the father of evolution and a defying man of the Status Quo, when at his time period, religion was blinding man's human morals. The Tralfamadorians see Jesus Christ as a nobody basically, because the things written about him are from a group of people that all believe in the same thing, while the book is thousands of years old. They won't believe in something whose miracles and crazy "out of this world" stories can never be proven because the people who may have been a witness are obviously long dead. Charles Darwin, however, scientifically proved that only the strongest survive because life is all about the survival of the fittest. Billy Pilgrim only survived the war because he knew he wouldn't if he tried to be the miracle worker and save everyone. He is not that strong of a person mentally, nor physically, but he knew well enough to not put himself out there and get himself killed. I believe that is how Vonnegut survived the war. He does not seem like a violent man, he is a humanist after all. As he put it in the paragraph above my stated passage, "My father died many years ago now- of natural causes. So it goes. He was a sweet man. He was a gun nut, too. He left me his guns. They rust." This is all coming from Vonnegut's perspective now. He never felt the need to use the guns, for animals or on people so they rusted. It is known he didn't believe in any religious affiliations, so Billy Pilgrim not looking up to Jesus Christ, but instead Charles Darwin, is an exact replica of Kurt Vonnegut.
" The earthling figure who is most engaging to the Tralfamadorian mind, he say is Charles Darwin-- who taught that those who die are meant to die, that corpses are improvements."
ReplyDeleteWhy does Vonnegut think of the death of someone this way? What could this be symbolizing>
Vonnegut writes this at the end of hi novel what exactly could it mean you ask. I interpret it as his paying respects to all the people that were killed at war. This is also the lesson that Billy learned throughout his time traveling and him traveling to Tralfamadore. I think that what he is trying to say is that people who die were taken because it was time for them to go their creator. They leave behind their corpse with memories but the rest of them dies and goes off some where else. I feel like Vonnegut is saying that death is a part of life and in order to live you have to die. So I think was something helps everyone to cope with all the loss in the actually war and in the novel. He wrote this to close his novel with comforting words.
Shyanne, I think this is less of vonneguts way of tributing those who have died, and more of him trying to comprehend so much death. World War II kiled aproximetly fifty six million people. This number is something we simply cannot comprehend. Try imagining 56 million pennies or grapes. Now imagine fifty six million people. You can't. Our ability to understand a number so high is not there. And to understand so much human potential lost, is something we are simply not able to do. Vonnegut is simply trying to brush off a tragedy that is literally unimaginable.
DeletePoo-tee-weet? (Vonnegut 215)”
ReplyDelete“There is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre (Vonnegut 19). ”
All there is to say about a massacre, things like Poo-tee-weet (Vonnegut 19).”
Why would Kurt Vonnegut choose to end a war novel with Poo-tee-weet and what exactly does Poo-tee-weet mean?
The end of Slaughterhouse-Five kind of surprised me; I expected the end of the novel to be more powerful than what it was. Vonnegut chooses to end the novel with the word Poo-tee-weet that, I am not even sure what exactly it means. When I went back to chapter one and I realized that Vonnegut mentions the way the novel begins and ends in chapter one. Vonnegut is a strong anti war advocate and in chapter one Vonnegut says, “there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre.” He goes on to say, “All there is to say about a massacre, things like Poo-tee-weet (Vonnegut 19)”.” I think Vonnegut choose to end his novel with Poo-tee-weet because he is saying yes I did just write an entire anti war novel but, war is so bad that nothing should be said about it and it shouldn’t exist.
"On Tralfamadore, say Billy Pilgrim, there isn't much interest in Jesus Christ." (210)
ReplyDeleteThis sentence stood out to me because it relates back to the discussions we've had during class about the connection between war and religion. I believe that one of Vonnegut's points in the book is that religion is a justification for war (on Earth), and therefore is a cause of war. For humans, the devotion to a religion is so great that one will go as far as fighting a war to defend that religion. We know that the Tralfamadorians think war is stupid, and, through this sentence, we now know that they do not devote themselves to religion. This essentially says that the Tralfamadorians do not fight wars because religion is not an important part of their society. Through this information, Vonnegut makes it clear that there is a clear connection between war and religion, the connection being that religion causes war.
Jenna i agree with you partially but i don't completely agree with your idea that religion causes war. I believe that religion can cause war for example the crusade, but i also am a strong believer that war occurs through the leadership of corruption. People wouldn't have fought in the crusades if the pope didn't abuse his power by saying their sins will be cleared if they fought for the word of God. But it does go both ways because you can say that without religion there wouldn't be corrupt leaders or religion to fight about.
DeleteLily Barbu
ReplyDeleteChapter One: “Thirty thousand children volunteered.. most of the children were shipped out of Marseilles, and about half of them drowned in shipwrecks.” (16.)
Chapter 10: “ He told the superior on the rim of the hole that there were dozens of bodies down there… They were unmarked. So it goes.”
Throughout the book, Vonnegut introduces the theory of time travel and “so it goes”. These Tralfamadorian created the idea that happy moments last forever, as do horrible ones, because nothing ever dies. A person cannot die, because the memories are a part of them forever. The Tralfamadorians like to visit happy memories and focus on those, they state that you cannot change what has happened, and you cannot change what is currently happening. You have to accept it for what it is and recall only good memories. During Billy’s time travel, it was always back and forth. Meaning he had no control as to where he was traveling to, sometimes he would travel to pleasant moments, and others to horrific ones. Both of these memories are eternal, and time cannot be used to forget about them or remove them. While someone can be experiencing something happy, someone somewhere else is going through hell. Also, the idea of “so it goes” was that there was no justice in these peoples death. In the book, the most innocent people that die, without reason are still subject to continuation of time, and essentially in this world many people of war are forgotten. I think Vonnegut added this for emphasis on the effects of time on things on war, and how it can lessen the value on the lives of passed on people. For example, in chapter 10, a quote states “He told the superior on the rim of the hole that there were dozens of bodies down there… They were unmarked. So it goes.” This can support the idea of how easily people can be, essentially be forgotten. This quote is also connected to the one in chapter one, which states on how something horrific may be happening in one area, but in another it may be complete mass destruction. For example, while Billy would be recalling sunny days, war prisoners may be uncovering the thousands of dead corpses from war. Even past things like the Thirty thousand children that volunteered in the Children’s Crusade can be related to the importance of time and the infinities of memories.
“And somewhere in there was springtime. The corpse mines were closed down. The soldiers all left to fight the Russians. In the suburbs, the women and children dug rifle pits. Billy and the rest of his group were locked up in the stable in the suburbs. And then, one morning, they got up to discover that the door was unlocked. The Second World War in Europe was over. “ (final page)
ReplyDeleteThis passage reminds me of a twilight zone, set during World War I, where a man shoots another man down, just moments before the war ends. Even while the terms of surrender are being signed, the fighting continues. More men die. That last shot fired didn’t make a difference, as the war was already almost over. Yet it was still fired. The man who was shot could have gone home, lived his life out. It is in these unnecessary deaths that we see the true wretchedness of war. If the shot had not been fired, that man could have gone home. Yet if the war had not started, fifty six million men could have kept on living. That man dead is a number so incomprehensible that I do not know how so many lives could be lost. So much wasted potential. And the brutality of it all is meant to be forgotten. After the bloodbath, we are simply asked to live in the ruins.
Quote:
ReplyDelete"But then the bodies rotted and liquified, and the stink was like roses and mustard gas. So it goes."
Question: Why does Vonnegut use the example of "stink was like roses and mustard gas." multiple times throughout the course of the book?
Response: As I read this great anti war novel I realized that Vonnegut likes to repeat things over and over again in his book. For instance Billy says, "But then the bodies rotted and liquified, and the stink was like roses and mustard gas. So it goes."(214) he describes this stench of " roses and mustard gas", but when i went back to chapter one to read over it i noticed that he said, "I have this disease late at night sometimes, involving alcohol and the telephone. I get drunk, and I drive my wife away with a breath like mustard gas and roses." when i saw the use of this line multiple times throughout the story it got me confused. I questioned why Vonnegut would describe his breath as the stench of a dead person? I also wondered if he was trying to explain/show us something? or if he was trying to draw a connection? Vonnegut is a unique writer with a different writing style that likes to say things like "so it goes" numerous times throughout the course of his novels. Although Vonnegut may have a somewhat confusing writing style, i think he writes in this way to make the reader think and concentrate more on the details over the general idea.
Emily Spinale
ReplyDelete"My father died many years ago now-of natural causes. So it goes. He was a sweet man. He was a gun nut, too. He left me his guns. They rust. On Tralfamadore, says Billy Pilgrim, there isn't much interest in Jesus Christ. The Earthlings figure who is most engaging to the Tralfamadorian mind, he says, is Charles Darwin- who taught that those who de are meant to die, that corpses are improvements. So it goes" (210). This beginning to the tenth and final chapter of Slaughterhouse Five brought up the recurring theme of death throughout the novel. Particularly, how Vonnegut's perception of death has changed after being in the war. All of chapter ten primarily discusses the corpses that the soldiers find when returning to Dresden and how they dispose of them. I feel that Vonnegut is trying to say that after being around death so much, it's become an extremely casual thing. As a result of this casualty, Vonnegut becomes less and less effected by death every time he encounters it- which becomes quite often. Therefore, he feels less and less emotion for a tragedy that the majority of the population is heavily effected by. This supports the idea that war makes soldiers lifeless. Being a soldier you have to learn to repress your emotions- its the only way to cope with the significant horrors you see. By repressing your emotions for so long, you never learn how to face them or, eventually, even recognize that they exist. After being in war Vonnegut views death significantly less intensely than he did before war- simply because his lifestyle while he was in war required him to do so, and you can't change back from that. You can't just change the way you view huge things (death) while you're in war and while you're not. Once you adapt a certain mentality and certain coping mechanisms toward things, they stay with you and help form and shape who you are.
"The trees were leafing out. There was nothing going on out there, no traffic of any kind. There was only one vehicle, an abandoned wagon drawn by two horses. The wagon was green and coffin-shaped. Birds were talking. One bird said to Billy Pilgrim, Poo-tee-weet."
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfect ending to this book. In fact it is not even an ending at all. One thing I love about Vonnegut's writing is that even though one scene ends, it really does not because we know what happens next from previous chapters. This is evident when Billy sees the wagon, we know that he will take a nap in it and then realize the horses are dying next. This kind of format reinforces the idea that all time is all time and all moments exist at the same time. Beside that with this chapter the obvious thing to observe is that poo-tee-weet represents that problem that Vonnnegut brought up in chapter 1 (that there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre). I also saw a sense of new beginnings in this scene though. Nothing was going on except that the trees were leafing. This could represents moving on from the death and starting of a new cycle. Kind of like succession in biology, small things start to grow, then they get bigger, then a storm wipes everything (in this case the storm would be war), and then it starts again. It the cycle that is unavoidable, hence writing an antiwar novel is like writing an anti-glacier novel because it is an immutable fact of life!
"And somewhere in there was springtime. The corpse mines were closed down. The soldiers all left to fight the Russians. In the suburbs, the woman and children dug rifle pits. Billy and the rest of his group were locked up in the stable in the suburbs. And then, one morning, they got up to discover that the door was unlocked. World War Two in Europe was over. Billy and the rest wandered out into the shady streets. The trees leafing out. There was nothing going on out there, no traffic of any kind. There was only one vehicle, an abandoned wagon drawn by two horses. The wagon was green and coffin-shaped. Birds were talking. One bird said to Billy Pilgrim, 'Poo-tee-weet?'"
ReplyDeleteI don't know. I love endings. It felt especially good to read this one. This one worked so well. I feel like he said poo-tee-weet in some other part of the book. Does anyone know where? No, not chapter one. But there is a signifigance in this phrase other than the birds being all thats left. The phrase is a question. It contains a question mark. For what? Whats the question? More importantly, whats the answer? I don't know. I haven't the foggiest. I am flabbergasted. Thats part of the fun though. The only person who could have possibly known the question, Kurt Vonnegut, is dead. Unless poo-tee-weet is the question. In which case we better start studying birds because I do not understand them. Maybe thats the point. We don't understand. Well, I don't. Maybe you do. Who knows, you're your own person. Good for you. Well done there. I'm a little sad the books over. It was too short to cover everything. But again we get to the point that it can't have covered everything. To try would have been grotesque and misanthropic to a degree. Its a freaking anti-war book for Vonnegut's sake! To try and complete it would make it possible to rationalize and therefore assimilate the whole notion of war! Then where would we be? Here I guess. Where is the wrong word. It connotes a physical place. The acceptance of war only changes us internally. It can often be hard to see on an individual scale. Which is why we would be here. The effect is to broad and underground to see. Well, sorry for the ramble. Good book.
-Ben