Billy's Fears

       I am actually starting to enjoy the randomness of Slaughter House Five because it allows for Vonnegut to plug some random philosophical thoughts and ideas into his writing.  One of my personal favorites from Chapter 8 was, "There are almost no characters in this story, and almost no dramatic confrontations, because most of the people in it are so sick and so much the listless playthings of enormous forces.  One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters" (208-209).  I think in this quote we see what Billy is trying not to become although he does have his moments being the "listless playthings of enormous forces" such as the Tralfamadorians.  He wants to be a character, he wants to be in this book, and he wants to have a story to tell so badly that he finds himself jumping from place to place in time to find something interesting enough to make himself a character. Although Billy has made it quite obvious he doesn't fear death because he has seen it happen many times, I think he fears being forgotten or not having an interesting enough story to tell.

Weirdness

As I was reading chapter 5 tonight, I could not help but notice that Billy (apart fromm being just really weird) maybe can "become unstuck in time" sort of all the time.  For instance, on page 135, Billy says how Derby describes the "Earthlings" and the weather and how the "Earthlings" dont want to inhabit "Earth" sometimes.  But, they aren't on Tralfamadore.  They're in the hospital prison talking about war, yet Billy can see Derby in one eye talking to him and Derby being shot in the future in the other eye, while using terminology one can relate to science fiction/Tralfamadore.  I just think its weird.

Vonnegut attempting to be subtle

         As I was reading the first half of Chapter 5 I saw many instances where I couldn't tell if Vonnegut was being blatantly obvious or attempting subtlety and failing.

         For instance, in chapter 1 Nancy is eating a Three Musketeers Bar, In chapter 2 we find out that Billy's group in the War was called the Three Musketeers, and in Chapter 5 Billy's wife to be is eating none other than a Three Musketeers Bar.  Now, either Vonnegut really likes his chocolate covered fluffy whipped candy Bars or he is attempting to be subtle in showing how war is everywhere.

        Another instance is when two separate people speak of how the War is the Children's Crusade.  Although this is a nice comparison, it is quite rare that two people would have the exact same specific thoughts on the war.
     
        Another observation I made was how Vonnegut often contradicts himself severely.  On page 127, Billy explains how everyone thought he was going crazy because of how his father had thrown him into the pool and taken him to the edge of the grand canyon.  Then on page 132 Rosewater says how its a shame that Billy's father is dead because "a boy needs a father." Now, if this were true and Billy did need his father, why would he be the reason that he is going crazy in the first place?

     And on a completely separate note, what was with the giraffes on page 126? Was anyone else a little confused about that one?

Ahh so this is what its forr...

Heyy guys I don't about you but I got a little too excited seeing 3 vocab words in the reading! We saw covetously, unmitigated, and unambiguous!!! WOAH!! Pretty cool, I'm more impressed at the fact that I still remember their definitions, so it goes. 

Hipster Quotes and STUFF

Nicki and I discovered a lil' gem while flipping through Slaughterhouse Five.  We found some quotes that are constantly leeched and hardly ever given proper credit. For example, I'm sure you've seen the occasional 'hipster' (ugh) bring out the "everything was beautiful and nothing hurt" quote in some sort of attempt to one-up everyone. Yes, we all love to tweet these interesting and scholarly things, but I think it's a little weird to equate knowledge with the amount of classic books we can quote.

Think about it, I mean, if someone around 20 years old told you they've never read The Catcher in the Rye, what would be your reaction? It's just a little silly that there's an expectation to be familiar with certain books, and if you're not, you're deemed an idiot or something. Is reading Shakespeare is a prerequisite to having a brain? I have a feeling Mrs. K might think so. But anyway.

What do you guys think? Does reading Vonnegut, Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Bukowski, Salinger, etc. make someone smarter? Or does at least seem that way? I can quote a lot of Salinger, maybe Bukowski, but not much Hemingway, and I have an awful math grade. I'd probably date a guy that knows more Beastie Boys lyrics than he does Shakespeare sonnets. But this is all just my opinion. What about yours?

So it goes

Vonnegut must really love the saying "so it goes" because it seems to appear in every other paragraph. I just keep getting the feeling that Vonnegut either does not buy the stories of others, and feels the need to share this with the reader by including "so it goes" or maybe he is not completely sold on his own story. I found myself not trusting him completely, it is hard to explain in words why I feel this way. An explanation would probably include many hand gestures, which I cannot convey over the internet.  By the end of the reading I could not stand seeing the words "so it goes," I personally found it very annoying and unnecessary, but I am sure there is some purpose to it that I have just not discovered yet.

Titles

I don't know why, but for some reason I have extreme difficulties choosing a title. I always write my essay first, then do all my proof-reading and rewrites, then eventually chose a title. Sometimes I don't even write a title and hand in a name-less paper. I'm not entirely sure what makes deciding on a title so difficult, but maybe it's just one of those things that I'm incapable of doing for no reason. Does anybody else have paper-writing mental blocks on one certain thing every time?