What is the central event of Slaughterhouse Five? Some may say its about Billy being unstuck in time. Other may say its just about the bombing of Dresden. What if the novel was in chronological order...what would the central event be?
If SH5 was is chronological order, this book would be about the bombing in Dresden. Kurt Vonnegut would just talk about Billy's life before and after the Dresden bombing and how Billy was affected. The novel would be boring.
Since SH5 isn't in chronological order, it keeps you reading, paying attention to every single detail. These details make connections to Billy's time hops all through out the story. To me, this story is about Billy being unstuck in time. Kurt Vonnegut discusses more then just the bombing in Dresden. Even though the bombing was in 1945, which is relatively early in Billy's life, the bombing isn't in full detail until towards the end of the novel. So many years of Billy's life in his older years are discussed because he jumps to those years.
What would Slaughterhouse Five be like if it was just told as Billy's life in chronological order? Would you be as entertained with the book?
Monday, April 4, 2016
Word Choice in SH5
Kurt Vonnegut's word choice to me is not very complex or hard to understand. But, at the same time, he is very dark and strong in a way, which really sets the tone of the novel.
A big thing that sticks out to me is that every time someone dies, whether accidental, natural, or on purpose, he says "So it goes." This makes it seem like he doesn't care that people are dying throughout the novel. This also reflects the ideas of the tralfamadorian. "The most important thing I learned on Tralfamadore was that when a person dies he only appears to die. He is still very much alive in the past, so it is very silly for people to cry at his funeral. All moments, past, present and future, always have existed, always will exist. The Tralfamadorians can look at all the different moments just that way we can look at a stretch of the Rocky Mountains, for instance. They can see how permanent all the moments are, and they can look at any moment that interests them. It is just an illusion we have here on Earth that one moment follows another one, like beads on a string, and that once a moment is gone it is gone forever.
When a Tralfamadorian sees a corpse, all he thinks is that the dead person is in a bad condition in that particular moment, but that the same person is just fine in plenty of other moments. Now, when I myself hear that somebody is dead, I simply shrug and say what the Tralfamadorians say about dead people, which is "so it goes.”
Also, Kurt Vonnegut is not big on emotion. He rarely made Billy cry out loud. Also, when Valencia hear Billy got into the plane crash, he describes 'offensive' way. "Valencia adored Billy. She was crying and yelping so hard as she drove that she missed the correct turnoff from the throughway." To me, describing Valencia's crying as 'yelping' is a very cruel term, especially over her husband's injury that could have killed him. Also, the simple fact that Billy never showed much emotion towards Valencia, despite her loving him, also shows Kurt Vonnegut's completely negative and cruel tone through SH5.
A big thing that sticks out to me is that every time someone dies, whether accidental, natural, or on purpose, he says "So it goes." This makes it seem like he doesn't care that people are dying throughout the novel. This also reflects the ideas of the tralfamadorian. "The most important thing I learned on Tralfamadore was that when a person dies he only appears to die. He is still very much alive in the past, so it is very silly for people to cry at his funeral. All moments, past, present and future, always have existed, always will exist. The Tralfamadorians can look at all the different moments just that way we can look at a stretch of the Rocky Mountains, for instance. They can see how permanent all the moments are, and they can look at any moment that interests them. It is just an illusion we have here on Earth that one moment follows another one, like beads on a string, and that once a moment is gone it is gone forever.
When a Tralfamadorian sees a corpse, all he thinks is that the dead person is in a bad condition in that particular moment, but that the same person is just fine in plenty of other moments. Now, when I myself hear that somebody is dead, I simply shrug and say what the Tralfamadorians say about dead people, which is "so it goes.”
Theme of SH5
Everybody interprets Slaughterhouse Five differently. There are a lot of unclear things through out the book, which leads to many different ways to read it. There is only a few things clear is Slaughterhouse Five, and one is that Kurt Vonnegut does not believe in war.
The theme of SH5 to me is that war has no true purpose. war is pointless. Kurt Vonnegut expresses that subtly through Slaughterhouse Five. He uses many different symbols and even some mockery to describe the war.
My favorite symbol that Kurt Vonnegut uses to talk about the war is the bird. To me "Poo-tee-weet" just represents the nothingness that can be said about the war, especially the firebombing in Dresden.
Kurt Vonnegut's purpose to me seems like he wants to inform people what World War II was really like. He didn't want to glorify the war like typical movies and books do. Also, he wanted to show what happens to soldiers after the war, because even if they make it out alive, they can end up with mental issues, such as PTSD and others. In the whole first chapter on Slaughterhouse Five, Vonnegut talks about his real life experiences after the war. This gave me a real perspective of what happens to soldiers after they fight.
So if these things are happening to our soldiers, why do we continue to fight? Will there ever be world peace?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)