May 10, 2007 again

May 10, 2007
Slaughter House 5
Filed under: Book Club — jtuffy @ 10:51 am
OK, now we can post comments without interruptions

27 Comments »
So what do you peeps think? So far, i think i’m tearing through the book to fast, but it has been a couple of days. I really thought the sour mushroom part was hysterical, bout turtled in my pants! LOL

Comment by jtuffy — May 10, 2007 @ 10:54 am

Yea… I have been taking it slow, doing some highlighting. I have a list of organizations and movements that he mentions tha I want to look up, do a little historical critisism.

Jon, are you familiar with the different theories of literary critisism. If you are not, I can point you to a few books that are easy reads and really helped me understand some of them. There is actualy a whole series of classic books that have, included in the volume, authors history, explanations of different critical theories and essays written about the book using those critical theories. I read the volume about James Joyce’s The Dead in one of my literature classes and it was very helpful. We should read on of these for the book club.

Comment by Seth — May 10, 2007 @ 11:16 am

Wow. this book actually sucks so far. Its going to have to get alot better just to not suck. Its just a bunch of random babblings. I have only read the first chapter so far. What the heck is poo-tee-weet? I sure hope this gets much better.

Comment by Frodo Baggins — May 12, 2007 @ 12:24 am

alright,

i’m only about half way through but, as i said before, i see a repeating theme of futility and mechanisms for coping with the futility. i don’t want to dive too far into it for those that haven’t finished. but there are several things that suggest this. in the first chapter, the thing that stood out to me was when the dude made the comment, “you might as well write an anti-glacier novel.” yes, i think the novel is “anti-war” but i really think that it is anti-control. war is about gaining control and asserting control. vonnegut, i think, has realized the futility of trying to control anything that happens in this life. he puts billy pilgrim in all of these crazy situations that seem to represent that. the war, the train, and various others. when everyone finishes i’ll give more concrete examples. what do you think? one detail that i think really highlights this is very small. when billy is in the train and he coughs and then craps his pants and vonnegut refers to the laws of thermodynamics and that for every action there is a reaction. it is an example of something that we can only understand but that we really can’t change or control.

thoughts?

michael. you’re an intelligent guy and i was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. no big deal if you didn’t know how to spell it.

can you resend me the article. i think i may have deleted the email that had it attached. i am actually really interested in the idea and the effects of a high carb diet as opposed to low fat diets. let me know. maybe we can discuss that article after the “secret”.

Comment by The Scam — May 12, 2007 @ 7:23 pm

So, are we waiting to finish the book? i expect the comments to start rolling in.

Here’s an easy one to jump start us. Does Billy really travel through time?

Comment by The Scam — May 14, 2007 @ 6:34 pm

I don’t think he really does, and he is my thoughts on that one, Where did Miss Montana go? When billy was in the porn shop montana was still missing? But billy was only gone in a blink of an eye. It just didn’t add up, i think he was just a mental patient of his own dominion the whole time.

Comment by jtuffy — May 14, 2007 @ 11:14 pm

I don’t know about the idea of only understanding but not being able to change. I really think that his writing relies very heavily on farce and satire. He may be saying we have no control… but it is said in a way that implies the very idea is ridiculous. Logic would sugest that if you realy understand the law of thermodynamics you choose to take actions that lend the desired re-actions.

The question I have is this, is Billy Pilgram a hero? He never tries to take an action, just continualy alows himself to be acted upon because he believes that his actions have already taken place. Can a character that never takes action be considered a hero in the literary scence?

Comment by Seth — May 15, 2007 @ 12:18 pm

I don’t think that billy is a hero, he never did anything, it was almost embarrasing to read about him, you wanted to just slap him around a bit. So I don’t think he is a hero, now an icon in literature he is. But not a hero. Heros do things couageously.

Comment by jtuffy — May 16, 2007 @ 8:06 am

This is what leigh ann emailed me about the book, she read it too!

BP was mental. Maybe his time traveling was his way to escape the
horror of the war…the only way to deal with reality was to have an alternate
reality. I liked the book though it was tough to follow…but kept me interested.
The dog barking when someone was about to get shot… was that the sound
of the gun going off?…

Comment by jtuffy — May 16, 2007 @ 11:33 am

About the dog, i’m sure it is some type of symbolism. I don’t know what it would be though. Probably the fact that life goes on, that there will always be a dog barking on some some street USA while chaos befalls somone. Maybe its the animalistic approach to outrage and voiced frustrations. What do you think?

Comment by jtuffy — May 16, 2007 @ 12:17 pm

Kurt mentions that the book really contains no heroes. I don’t think that he ever intended billy to be a hero and in fact wanted him to be so weak that he would anger people - cause a reaction. kurt mentions that the only time there is any glimpse of a hero is when Edgar Derby stands up for what he believes to Campbell the traitor. Going with what Seth said, instead of just going with the flow, like Billy, the only hero in the book stood up to the force being placed on him and took control of his own situation.

i like what seth said, that when we understand our situation we should take control and cause actions that will give us desired reactions. i think this is what Edgar did.

Comment by The Scam — May 16, 2007 @ 8:19 pm

jon, i agree, i think he was delusional. the whole montana thing gives it away. the whole wet dream thing as well gives a hint that, i think.

he did leave things open. i’m not sure to what end kurt did that.

seth, yes the writing relies on farce and satire but it is also poignant and critical. i think he uses war as an example of how futile somethings in life are.

i think kurt uses the trafalmadorians as a foil to the earthlings. i think the trafalmadorians are the opposite in how we should approach and view life. they see the big picture and understand it for what it is. although they may not be able to change things they accept it and go with the flow. humans fight against it.

is one better?

Comment by The Scam — May 16, 2007 @ 8:29 pm

Anyone checked out Stranger than Fiction?

Comment by Seth — May 16, 2007 @ 8:41 pm

i saw it a couple of weeks ago but could you explain to me a little bit more the correlation that you drawing. i can see the idea that we aren’t as in control of our actions as we think we are, but beyond that, what connections are you making?

Comment by The Scam — May 17, 2007 @ 11:57 am

it is kinda hard to discuss the book when we are not on at the same time!

Comment by jtuffy — May 17, 2007 @ 12:33 pm

The thing I found interesting about the book and the movie is that Billy Pilgrim did what he did because he had too. Will Farrel’s character was very simular to Billy Pilrim, except he chooses to follow his fate because it was the right thing to do. Basicaly… as similar as they are, they are compleate oposites. Will Farrel’s character is a hero, Billy is a putz… even through their similarities.

The thing I found most similar was the overall theme. That we have control over our actions, even in the face of mind numbing futility we can choose how we respond and react.

Comment by Seth — May 17, 2007 @ 4:32 pm

I would disagree seth. I think Billy was pathetic because he thought he did not have control over his actions. If he did, he would have tried to change the outcomes. He just let people around him die, darby, his wife, and himself. Somone that trully believes in controlling their own destiny reacts to negative and beneficial circumstances. Billy did neither.

Comment by jtuffy — May 18, 2007 @ 8:09 am

I don’t know what you’re disagreeing with. That’s exactly what I was saying. He felt he did things because he had too, because he had already done them and had to do them again.

Comment by Seth — May 18, 2007 @ 9:49 am

well you said at the very end that the theme was “we have control over our actions, even in the face of ind numbing futility…” I was disagreing with that.

Comment by jtuffy — May 18, 2007 @ 9:56 am

So… what did you think the theme of the book was, if not that we have control over out actions?

Comment by Seth — May 18, 2007 @ 12:22 pm

Ok, here are my thoughts, i do think the themes are free-will, fate, and base human behavior. (remember these are my thoughts). I disagree with the statement “we have control over our actions” based on two of the main themes i stated. Fate and Free-will are intertwined. Billy could not change his death, he couldn’t change the bombings, couldn’t change the fact that he was an optomitrist. That is Fate, he had no free-will to change those things; however he did have free-will to think/ponder/analyze the situations fate had placed him in. Billy was “unstuck in time” and moved sporadicaly through different periods of his life, it is his mental reactions (not physcial) that gave Billy his free-will. The tramaldores told Billy to just focus on the happy times in life, which is what he kinda did when he was sun-bathing in the horses green cart. He couldn’t change the moment but he could focus on the moment! Hopefully that makes sense.

Comment by jtuffy — May 18, 2007 @ 12:52 pm

Yea, it does make sence. But it seems like you are looking at the literal meaning of the text. It seems to me that irony would suggest this is a ridiculous point of view. That we do have more control over our situation than just focusing on the random good events that befall us. What do you think?

Comment by Seth — May 18, 2007 @ 3:08 pm

The example the trafalmadorians give of the guy that destroys the universe is very telling. he knows he’s going to do it, they could change it if they want to, but they choose not to. in their eyes, he has basically already done it.

i think that kurt is trying to point out the horribleness of this kind of thought. instead of being dictated by possible events, one could try to change things for the better. i think the whole book is very satirical. vonnegut wants billy to look like a pansy because he doesn’t do anything. everything he got in life, his practice, his part ownership of the holiday inn, were because someone else did it for him.

if billy is really imagining his time and space travel, then maybe he invented the trafalmadorians to justify his apathetic approach to his own existence.

seth, i do see the connection with the movie. i actually think it is really interesting the juxtaposition of the to protagonists. that was a great thought.

Comment by The Scam — May 21, 2007 @ 9:18 pm

I really enjoy SH-5 and Stranger Than Fiction… but the fact that I was reading one when I watched the other really made me appreciate them both more. Just one of lifes happy accidents (that is a ceramics term for crazyness that happens in the kiln that turns out beautifult!)

Comment by Seth — May 22, 2007 @ 4:40 am

It would be interesting to deconstruct the characters and decide why one might praise harold crick in stranger than fiction and completely despise billy pilgrim.

how about emotion? vonnegut mentions that the only time billy cried during the whole war was at then end with the horses. harold was pretty emotional about the whole deal as soon as he found out what was going on. do you think that we as humans relate to the emotional responses of others?

Comment by The Scam — May 22, 2007 @ 10:06 am

The comparison of these two is really very interesting. I have felt that Vonnegut intended Billy to loose emotion, that is to say when he becomes unstuck he looses his emotional response. But it seems that Billy lost it… meaning he had it at one point. What do you think?

Herald on the other hand goes from having no emotion, to hearing the narator and developing emotions. I really enjoyed how he basicaly had to learn how to enjoy and express his emotions. At one point in particular he realizes that the emotional response had always been there but that he had always overpowered it with his cool calculations.

Comment by Seth — May 22, 2007 @ 10:36 am

As well, the idea of awareness. Each becomes aware of their own surroundings and their place in the universe (sort of) but each reacts completely differently.

If you want to throw a gospel spin on it, when we become truly aware of our place in the universe, do we rebel or coast along, or do we change and grow?

Comment by The Scam — May 22, 2007 @ 11:53 am