In class I had you pick out scenes from the book that stood out to you for some reason. They were poignant, sad, funny, strange, enlightening, well-written, strangely written, seemingly important, etc.
Discuss at least two scenes you have chosen. Respond to what someone else has said about a third scene. You may write about anything you want--character, characterization, imagery, motifs, historical references, your personal emotional or intellectual reaction, links to other literature we have studied, etc.--as long as you are specific and insightful. (We haven't talked much yet about the novel's motifs but looking at what images, ideas, and phrases are repeated is an excellent clue to what matters in the novel (in any novel, as you probably realize by now).
In addition to writing about what you want, I'd like for you to comment on how the scene (and perhaps the book as a whole) is written. You might deal with the narrator, the narrative voice, the juxtaposition of scenes, the diction, the syntax, etc. Quote directly from the text to illustrate your ideas about the novel!!! "300 words or more" is a good rule of thumb for length. This weekend I'll post another Slaughterhouse-Five assignment and will await your comments. The next post will ask you to think about the novel as a whole.
10 comments:
I know that I said this comment in class, but I was really intrigued by the birds at the beginning and the end. In the beginning, Vonnegut talks to his sons about massacres and the fact that "Only the birds sing." There is nothing intelligent to say after a massacre. Billy Pilgrim is sung to by a bird at the end of a book. It is after the massacre. "Poo-te-weet?" is all that is left. The bird does not even know what is proper. The book is like Mr. Cook said, an attempt at singing. The book is the question.
The voice comments on everything matter of factly. It is reminiscent of reading a children's book (at least that is the impression that I got). If one did not know what the words meant or the context, one might think of it as a book like "See Spot Run." What it deals with is very serious, but a child (The Children's Crusade) may be able to think of it as a book that is readable.
John Ryan
The first passage I would like to cite occurs after Billy’s abduction (115). He is answering visitors’ questions and wonders why no one has asked him about man’s inherent aggression and violence towards one another. He soon becomes impatient of waiting and answers an alien who asks what he has found most valuable about Tralfamadore. Billy says, “As you know, I am from a planet that has been engaged in senseless slaughter since the beginning of time. I myself have seen the bodies of schoolgirls boiled alive in a water tower by my own countrymen, who were proud of fighting pure evil at the time.” I think this passage is especially interesting because it is a vivid example of human nature. I love how Vonnegut describes how Billy takes a question and flips it to serve his own interests, a very human thing to do. Vonnegut actually states, “-the subject of war never came up until Billy brought it up himself.” I thought this was pretty fantastic.
A second passage I really enjoyed was an excerpt from Howard W. Campbell, Jr.’s monograph (129). He describes how in America, obsession with money has led to the self-hatred of an entire stratum of American society. He describes how the American well-to-do despise the poor as much as the poor feel disgraced for their misfortune. This passage kind of freaked me out only because I recognized that I too fall into this negative description of Americans. I agree with Campbell that Americans are raised under the assumption that money is the answer to success and a symbol of intelligence. It’s interesting that Vonnegut places this excerpt here in between Billy’s capture and the bombing of Dresden. Before this passage I was wondering how Vonnegut felt about America’s morality, whether he felt America has done more good for the world than ill. Throwing this passage just before the description of the massacre at Dresden caught me off guard because it showed a simple flaw in American culture. It was not as devastating as the destruction of a city yet affected me far more.
In response to Molly’s comment about how this book is an attempt at singing, I think that book was pretty successful at singing. Maybe Vonnegut didn’t believe that the book was a success, he actually states that he felt the book was a failure, but any story that is able to illustrate how little control human beings have in deciding their futures with basic language and fable like construction is quite exciting. Although Vonnegut may not have sang the song he wished to sing, I thought he sang pretty swell.
Dan Aloisio
One scene that was especially poignant to me involved Billy’s time in Dresden. In the scene, Billy is moving down the street in a wagon drawn by two horses, when he comes across a German couple that has him look at the horses, which are in bad condition. Billy “burst into tears,” though he “hadn’t cried about anything else in the war.” The scene was so glaring, I think, because it showed Billy as more than diffused/foreclosed. For once, he seemed to be in a sort of moratorium. As for the style, it is unique that the foreigners are “softly beautiful” while Billy is “ridiculous in his azure toga and silver shoes.” This may serve to suggest that war is not a cut-and-dry battle between good and evil. Also, the couple brings a mystical element in their linguistic ability and general thoughtfulness that severely affects Billy when scolded. The juxtaposition of the scene with the next, which shows Rumfoord justifying war, is brilliant in showing Billy’s contrast of personality. At one time, before the Tralfamadorians and plane crash, Billy seemed to be taking beginning steps towards an identity development. It is immediately clear that this fails, and as the epigraph (mentioned also in the scene) states, “No crying he makes.”
Another scene that was memorable was the scene concerning Billy’s premature death at the hands of a “high-powered laser gun” in 1976. The scene, past its hilarious satire about the Balkanization of the US into twenty petty nations, with Chicago being hydrogen-bombed by angry Chinamen, gives us many clues as to how Vonnegut wishes us to see Billy Pilgrim. The likelihood of these catastrophic world events happening in a few short years is infinitesimal, as is the probability of Billy selling out a capacity audience in a geodesic-capped baseball stadium. Therefore, Billy Pilgrim—at least to a large degree—created the concepts of the Tralfamadorians for his own comfort. This is echoed in the Tralfalmadorians resemblance to a Kilgore Trout novel’s characters. Again, this scene is delicately placed. Between a scene describing promises of death and a scene including it, one cannot help but sympathize with Billy’s means of escape. In thinking about the diction Billy uses in his actual speech (inside the scene), I cannot help but get annoyed by and simultaneously sympathize with Billy. He has created a system where he cannot be wrong. If he lives, that’s just how it is; if he dies, so it goes.
I agree with John that Vonnegut takes an interesting route in looking at human violence. However, I think that that scene itself is more about the Tralfamadorian response—that they have, had, and always will have violence. They just choose to ignore it and focus on good times, so to speak. Furthermore, this scene shows that there was a progression in Billy in becoming comfortable with the Tralfamadore concept. He is slowly intoxicated by their life view as he is abducted, rather than knowing it is his calling or something like that. This is echoed in Barbara (I think that’s Billy’s daughter’s name?) allusions at Billy’s declining mental state.
The first time I read through Slaughterhouse Five was my sophomore year, and at this first reading (a quick one, which I didn’t really reflect on) I loved the book for its face value. The conversational and often sarcastic dialogue interested me, and made me feel like the story was far more intimate and relatable – a good quality to have for a book that some would call “far-fetched”. I related to it on a purely emotional level, not acknowledging running motifs or deeper ideas that would make the book even more interesting.
This time, however, certain scenes and motifs stuck out to me, and struck me as extremely poignant. The one I mentioned in class – Billy watching the war film backwards – was easily my favorite scene and a place where I thought Vonnegut’s writing was at its best. His writing almost seemed to sway back and forth, lulling the reader into a calm. Even though the premise was completely irrational, it seemed logical. Good writing to me gives off a certain effect, and with this one, it was almost like being in a dream underwater; everything moved slowly, peacefully, and without sound. War seemed undoable, and sent the reader (or at least me) into instant conflict; wanting to believe that this seemingly plausible thing could happen and knowing at the same time that reality did not permit it.
The other thing I noticed wasn’t a scene so much as a recurring motif; a dog barking. A lot of the other motifs seemed more apparent, while this one felt more like a distant echo, if that makes any sense. Throughout the war (when he is found by the Germans, when he imagines Dresden, etc) and in other instances (right before the Tralfamadorians pick him up), Vonnegut adds the theme of “a dog barking in the distance” or “somewhere a large dark barked.” At one point, in the scene with the Germans, he recognizes that the dogs bark is much more fearsome at a distance, and when he meets it, its actually a scruffy herding dog that doesn’t look cut out for the job. Could this be Vonnegut’s take on humanizing the enemy? Soldiers are fearsome at a distance, but relatively harmless and out of place when met face to face, no longer hiding behind machinery? I personally think so, and want to look into this more. This leads me also to agree with Dan’s remark about the locals in Dresden that Billy faces after the bombing, and their “soft beauty”. In both situations, Vonnegut humanizes the opposition, making them seem (as they are) like us.
A scene that I was very interested in was the one I mentioned in class: When Billy Pilgrim meets Kilgore Trout. Trout is very unsuccessful. One may even go so far as to say he is a loser. I found it interesting that Billy has adapted a life philosophy based around the books Trout writes. In a way, Trout is Billy’s God. It is funny to think that a man with such elaborate ideas, replete with social commentary, is so grossly underappreciated. A funny little coincidence I have noticed, involving Molly’s comments about the simplicity of the writing style in particular, is that Vonnegut tells us “Trout’s writing was atrocious. Only his ideas were good.” That is funny because Molly also seems to believe that the writing of Slaughterhouse Five is not very interesting because of its simplicity. Vonnegut himself says that he had failed with this novel. This leads me to believe that Vonnegut is both Billy Pilgrim and Kilgore Trout. Perhaps Billy represents Vonnegut as a naïve boy and Trout represents Vonnegut now, an angry old man. I prefer to believe Vonnegut has a better writing style than Trout.
Another scene I liked was when the POWs meet the Englishmen. The whole situation involving them seems absurd. The Englishmen with a song, a dinner and a show greet them. At first one may write this off as silly; The Englishmen have obviously gone crazy. I know I did that. But then I thought about it for a while. Those men are just trying to make meaning in the face of adversity. Maybe my own nature as a person to let such a seemingly helpless situation get me down got in the way of looking at those men objectively. Can one blame them for trying to enjoy their lives a little bit, despite such unsavory circumstances? When you look at it that way, it seems quite reasonable. But then we have the Tralfamadorians, who are going to laugh anyway. What a shame.
Also, in response to John and Molly’s comments about the writing style. I think I side with John on Vonnegut’s “singing”. Vonnegut himself says, “There is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre. The genius of the book is that it is so silly and the writing is so simplistic that it gives the impression of there being nothing intelligent said. However, as thinkers and perceptive readers, we notice the themes and motifs, filtering out the nonsense. I really like that layer to the novel.
The two scenes of Billy Pilgrim drowning and his escapade through the forests as a soldier in World War II in conjunction seemed to set the mood of the entire book. In Germany Billy makes it clear that he is not at all interested in fighting, “Billy stood there politely, giving the marksman another chance… the marksman should be given a second chance… It was absolutely necessary that cruelty be used, because Billy wouldn’t do anything to save himself. Billy wanted to quit.” At this point in the story I felt a little sorry for Billy, he had no interest in fighting a war or being a soldier but had unfortunately been placed right in the middle of a battle. Several pages later is the first time Billy is so called “unstuck in time.” Billy travels to a pool in his home town, his father is teaching Billy to swim and Billy discovers that he cannot. Next follows a description of drowning, there is lovely music lulling him to sleep: “He dimly sensed that somebody was rescuing him. Billy resented that.” The fact Billy “resented” being saved was rather astonishing, this character does not want to live. Billy does not care about life, the events in the story are told exactly as Billy remembers them, he offers no insight into the relatedness of the events because he does not really seem to care. The reader must interpret the meaning of the events as Billy does seem to think it is necessary to explain himself.
In response to Dan’s comment: The scene involving the horse and the German couple reminded me a bit of King Lear, there a scene in which there was some humanity making a striking contrast with the rest of the story. Somebody cared even if it was caring for a horse. The horses were completely innocent of the situation; they were not involved in the battle between “good and evil” they were simply suffering through the cruelty of the universe, much like Billy watches his life as he becomes unstuck in time.
Billy’s opinions of each character that entered the novel seemed to provide a dual standpoint that reflected on his indecisive mannerisms throughout most of the book. In two particular situations that he was in he appears to be dazed and bewildered by the actual physical happenings, however he is able to better understand his own being at these moments for a brief time. The first scene that I felt aided my outlook on the rest of the book was when Billy and Leary were fighting in the bed of the creek and the German soldiers came and found them. Billy began to describe the boots that the German’s commander was wearing. At this point Billy truly made me feel as though he were in the middle of an awfully miserable exposure. Billy described that boots as “almost all he (the commander) owned in the world.” The commander told them that if you look deeply enough into the golden boots, you can see Adam and Eve. As Billy lay on the black ice he looked at the corporal’s boots very closely and saw Adam and Eve. When he saw this image the author had Billy thinking, “They were naked. They were so innocent, so vulnerable, so eager to behave decently. Billy Pilgrim loved them.” At times like these all the lack of influence Billy has upon his own life gets returned to him in the form of empathy. Although these soldiers are capturing him and could potentially hurt him the symbol on their boots allows Billy to recognize the similarities between what should be considered exclusively the opposite.
Towards the ending of the book there is another scene that resembled what may have been Billy’s consistent guilt. He takes Kilgore Trout to his and Valencia’s Anniversary party and Billy was strangely disorientated by the song “That Old Gang of Mine.” He depicted how he did not even relate very well to the song, however after having heard it he longed for those sweethearts and pals mentioned in the song. He claimed that as people at the party began to ask him if he was okay he felt as though he was, but as anticipated he had no means to convey why he reacted the way he did. Through this passage it Billy yet again discovers that even though he is supposedly within a tolerable environment he continues to develop the same persistent sense of awe as he did many times before, such as when he examined the boots. Although this book is brimming with disastrous events, it is just as greatly absorbed in small glimmers of blameless beliefs.
Kacie O’Maley
Both of the scenes that I chose in class had to do with Bill’s wife Valencia. The scenes that she was in stuck out in my mind, her character really depressed me and the more I thought about her the more Billy and her relationship depressed me. When Valencia died by carbon monoxide inhalation when she was rushing to see Billy in the hospital, her death was so tragic and ridiculous it was almost funny. It bothered me that she was sincere and loved Billy and he was just in the marriage because he has proposed to her on a crazy whim.
Billy and Valencia didn’t seem to have anything in common. When she went to visit him at the hospital this was clear. They didn’t have anything to talk about and she kept shoving candy bars in her mouth. When she did try to start a conversation with him, it was about the war and it made her sound ignorant. Asking simple questions as “was the war terrible?” or “tell me stories about the war,” displayed how she didn’t understand what a terrible time Billy was having trying to cope with everything that he had to deal with in Dresden.
In class we talked about how Vonnegut used verbal irony and the fact that the narrator presented concepts using language that made it seem like the concepts were real, even though we knew that they weren’t. I was thinking about the hints that the reader is given to pick up on the fact that the world Billy has invented isn’t real without saying it directly. I found a scene that I had noted on page 56, in which Billy had fallen asleep while with a patient. There were other references to Billy’s sleep and dreams which is a hint that maybe he is dreaming up this world and it isn’t real.
The first scene that really stood out to me was on the page 115. The Tralfamadorians were describing the way that humans view time. Their description of it really made me laugh. It was as if we were little insignificant creatures that could not even see what was all around them. "All Billy could see was the little dot at the end of the pipe...Whatever poor Billy saw through the pipe, he had no choice but to say to himself, "That's life." Vonnegut's description of human's view of time pin pointed exactly how humans feel a lot of time, insignificant. This scene was juxtaposed with the view of the Tralfamadorians view of time. Where their view of time was streched out like a mountain range for you to look at whenever you wanted. This juxtaposition only made the human view of time seem even more ridiculous. It was as if we were so ignorant that we didn't even know there was any other view of time.
The second scene that I found interesting was when Billy is giving a speech on his theory in a huge baseball field on page 142. In this scene Billy ends up dieing, which he already knew was going to happen. He restates this throughout the book that Paul Lazzaro is going to kill him. "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." It was the idea that a person can die in one moment but still be alive in any other moment. That is only one moment in a person's life and every other moment you can look at instead of that one. It is this idea that enables Billy to have hope in his life.The idea that Billy is giving a speech to thousands of people and that the US is divided into 20 petty nations in a few years gives the reader the idea that this really didn't happen. Although as I said before if it gives Billy hope to live than it is well worth it to imagine.
In response to Kathi's comment on Billy viewing the war film backward I also enjoyed that scene because of the way Vonnegut's writing was structured. I found that Billy's life often gave me that same feeling. The way it seemed he walked through life without sound or a care. Even when he was in the war, he was constantly getting yellled at by Roland Weary because he was standing in the middle of the battle field about to get shot.This is when he says he first got unstuck in time. Which would explain the feeling of soundless during a war since Billy was "living" in Tralfamore instead of in the war.
The juxtaposition of scenes, words, and images in Slaughterhouse-Five greatly affected how I reacted to the story. At times the writing would be humorous and then instantaneously depressing. For example, my favorite scene is when Billy gets drunk and can’t find the steering wheel because he is in the backseat. After this scene the reader is transported to World War II. Billy is shaken awake, which creates a feeling of abrupt awareness in the reader as well. Juxtaposing these two scenes makes the second feel more serious and possibly detrimental, but in both Billy is portrayed as vulnerable and slightly pathetic. Vonnegut also juxtaposed images and language effectively. On page 65, Billy finds an afternoon during the war to be “stingingly exciting”. He is excited by seeing “dragon’s teeth, killing machines, corpses with bare feet that were blue and ivory.” Billy’s feelings towards his surroundings seem unnatural and inhumane. But I also think that this goes along with an idea throughout the book, that Americans or maybe humans in general are attracted to and excited by war and destruction and death, particularly through TV and methods of story telling. Anyway, Billy bobs up-and-down as he walks and “beams lovingly at a bright lavender farmhouse that had been spattered with machine-gun bullets”. The image of a bright purple house is turned upside down by the description of destruction by machine-gun bullets. This scene and Billy’s reaction to it appear happy but also terrible. In the next line a German Colonel stands next to an unpainted whore. The description of the unpainted woman contrasts with the brightly painted house. Also, one might imagine a wholesome family living in a “bright lavender farmhouse” rather than a colonel and his whore, whose presence along with the bullets taints this image. The juxtaposition in the passage portrayed the extreme effects of war. This image is interrupted when Billy bumps into Weary, and once again the reader is also “shaken awake” and returned to a different reality. Vonnegut’s use of imagery and language could be absurd, complex, simple, illustrative and so on, which interested me throughout the novel.
In response to Molly’s comment about relating the story to See Spot Run, I was looking through the book and found a passage about Billy’s dog named Spot. The dog is in his bed and when Billy turns on the magic fingers he runs out. The sentences that follow remind me of a children’s book because the language is so simplistic: “ The dog was Spot. Good old Spot was still alive in those days. Spot lay down again in the corner.” I don’t know if Molly had this passage in mind when writing her comment, but either way I was pretty excited by this discovery.
Post a Comment