Sunday 17 April 2011
Agreeing with Tareq all the way
I would like to start off by saying that Tareq's blog is an excellent source of ideas. It is very inciteful, entertaining and very descriptive. If you would like to check it out, here is the link:
http://slaughterhouse511.blogspot.com/
I would like to start commenting on your post about the organization of the novel. I agree with you 100%. If time travel had taken a hike, it wouldn't be a story, it would be just a book with words in the wrong order; the time travel aspect puts all the pieces of the puzzle together. To focus on the tricky parts of the novel in which everything could potentially become Billy's imagination, you could check out my very first post. It focuses on the alternate options as to how he time travels. It also comes into relation with why Vonnegut uses the time traveling as the main plot. I hope it can help your understanding. As well, I totally believe that the war aspect allows a contrast of good and bad moments in which you should focus more on the good moments. This hidden messaging is another reason why it would be so hard to create a film about the transgressions of Billy, which brings me to your next post.
Nobody could remake such a novel into a physical film. It would be too confusing. Sure, the trailer would intrigue most people as most trailers don't focus enough on the plot argot people won't understand what that plot is, but they go see it because it is intriguing. And writing it down on paper is pretty much the only way to truly understand the plot of this story, as you are able to re-read certain ideas. Exactly. And symbolism and subliminal messaging are very prominent in the novel, so much that you couldn't perceive it all from a movie. It's a visual aid, for god's sake. I would say a mistake is the perfect word for it all.
The last post I will comment on is the one that is truly similar to a post of mine. This is the comparison between the personalities of Billy Pilgrim and Forrest Gump. Forrest Gump is one of my favorite movies, an instant classic! The fact that you haven't seen it until recently is a crime! Just kidding. The content of your comparison is spot on. Luck and innocence are the main traits between them, even though they do live completely separate lives. I also noticed how harmless these two are. This is until they are told to kill, which could be prevalent in the war scene. Which could mean that they are also very loyal. Forrest obtains the record for putting together a lethal weapon despite his 75 IQ, and his only reason for doing it so quickly is because he was told to do it. Forrest prevails while Billy scrapes by while the world dumps on him. As I said in my post about these two, I completely agree that the only difference is their attitude. After researching that Vonnegut is an atheist, I learned that the reasons as to why Billy is dumped on by his superiors is because Vonnegut doesn't believe in fate. He believes that free will is what makes your future which is why Billy is depressed then and now. Forrest on the other hand is mostly happy with his life because fate gives him a break and allows luck to build him up.
Overall, I believe that all of your posts are thorough and persuasive. That is, everyone has their own opinions. And so ends my blog.
So it goes.
http://slaughterhouse511.blogspot.com/
I would like to start commenting on your post about the organization of the novel. I agree with you 100%. If time travel had taken a hike, it wouldn't be a story, it would be just a book with words in the wrong order; the time travel aspect puts all the pieces of the puzzle together. To focus on the tricky parts of the novel in which everything could potentially become Billy's imagination, you could check out my very first post. It focuses on the alternate options as to how he time travels. It also comes into relation with why Vonnegut uses the time traveling as the main plot. I hope it can help your understanding. As well, I totally believe that the war aspect allows a contrast of good and bad moments in which you should focus more on the good moments. This hidden messaging is another reason why it would be so hard to create a film about the transgressions of Billy, which brings me to your next post.
Nobody could remake such a novel into a physical film. It would be too confusing. Sure, the trailer would intrigue most people as most trailers don't focus enough on the plot argot people won't understand what that plot is, but they go see it because it is intriguing. And writing it down on paper is pretty much the only way to truly understand the plot of this story, as you are able to re-read certain ideas. Exactly. And symbolism and subliminal messaging are very prominent in the novel, so much that you couldn't perceive it all from a movie. It's a visual aid, for god's sake. I would say a mistake is the perfect word for it all.
The last post I will comment on is the one that is truly similar to a post of mine. This is the comparison between the personalities of Billy Pilgrim and Forrest Gump. Forrest Gump is one of my favorite movies, an instant classic! The fact that you haven't seen it until recently is a crime! Just kidding. The content of your comparison is spot on. Luck and innocence are the main traits between them, even though they do live completely separate lives. I also noticed how harmless these two are. This is until they are told to kill, which could be prevalent in the war scene. Which could mean that they are also very loyal. Forrest obtains the record for putting together a lethal weapon despite his 75 IQ, and his only reason for doing it so quickly is because he was told to do it. Forrest prevails while Billy scrapes by while the world dumps on him. As I said in my post about these two, I completely agree that the only difference is their attitude. After researching that Vonnegut is an atheist, I learned that the reasons as to why Billy is dumped on by his superiors is because Vonnegut doesn't believe in fate. He believes that free will is what makes your future which is why Billy is depressed then and now. Forrest on the other hand is mostly happy with his life because fate gives him a break and allows luck to build him up.
Overall, I believe that all of your posts are thorough and persuasive. That is, everyone has their own opinions. And so ends my blog.
So it goes.
Billy Pilgrim=Forrest Gump
I know multiple people may have touched upon this subject, but it is a very relatable topic, so you can't hog all the good ideas.
Innocence. If described in one word, Billy Pilgrim is innocent. If described in one word, Forrest Gump is innocent. Harmless, loyal, innocent. That's 3 words that describe both of these fellows. I could go on all day. Billy Pilgrim is Forrest Gump. Or should I say that Forrest Gump is Billy Pilgrim.
They share the same personality. They both do not know what lies ahead, yet they plan their lives out so well. Nobody knows what lies ahead. Life is a mystery. Oh no, I'm rambling, broke rule number 2. Anyway, they both begin to use luck to fulfill their life. In different ways, however. Billy uses luck just to scrape by. He goes with the flow and marries a fat daughter of a rich optometrist. Forrest, on the other hand, uses luck to obtain a gold star in every category. He becomes a millionaire with shrimp sales, obtains a scholarship to college for running quickly despite his IQ of 75, and obtains the Medal of Honor for his transgressions in Vietnam.
They both do exactly what they are told, but they get different results. Billy gets dumped on by his superiors and Forrest moves on to excel in his next task. They both are definitely loyal, but for different rewards. For Billy, its just to live his life, while Forrest does it because he is told to. Even ask him, you'll get the same response. As well, neither will ever hurt a fly, unless you tell them to.
Their personalities are so similar, but, and I definitely agree with Tareq on this one, their attitudes are completely different. In my eyes, Billy is definitely depressed, and because Vonnegut writes his character as though free will controls the future, Billy gets a crappy life. Forrest on the other hand is fairly happy with his life because fate gives him a happy life, he has luck on his side.
This is Chris the Butcher signing off.
So it goes.
Innocence. If described in one word, Billy Pilgrim is innocent. If described in one word, Forrest Gump is innocent. Harmless, loyal, innocent. That's 3 words that describe both of these fellows. I could go on all day. Billy Pilgrim is Forrest Gump. Or should I say that Forrest Gump is Billy Pilgrim.
They share the same personality. They both do not know what lies ahead, yet they plan their lives out so well. Nobody knows what lies ahead. Life is a mystery. Oh no, I'm rambling, broke rule number 2. Anyway, they both begin to use luck to fulfill their life. In different ways, however. Billy uses luck just to scrape by. He goes with the flow and marries a fat daughter of a rich optometrist. Forrest, on the other hand, uses luck to obtain a gold star in every category. He becomes a millionaire with shrimp sales, obtains a scholarship to college for running quickly despite his IQ of 75, and obtains the Medal of Honor for his transgressions in Vietnam.
They both do exactly what they are told, but they get different results. Billy gets dumped on by his superiors and Forrest moves on to excel in his next task. They both are definitely loyal, but for different rewards. For Billy, its just to live his life, while Forrest does it because he is told to. Even ask him, you'll get the same response. As well, neither will ever hurt a fly, unless you tell them to.
Their personalities are so similar, but, and I definitely agree with Tareq on this one, their attitudes are completely different. In my eyes, Billy is definitely depressed, and because Vonnegut writes his character as though free will controls the future, Billy gets a crappy life. Forrest on the other hand is fairly happy with his life because fate gives him a happy life, he has luck on his side.
This is Chris the Butcher signing off.
So it goes.
Vonnegut's Seven Principles to Writing a Confusing Novel
- Find a subject you care about.
- Do not ramble, though.
- Keep it simple.
- Have the guts to cut.
- Sound like yourself.
- Say what you mean to say.
- Pity the readers.
- Find a subject you care about and put it into the most complex form of writing so that barely anyone can decipher the subject
- Keep switching from plot to plot as if nothing happens
- Create 40 plots
- Have the guts to cut (thank god for this principle)
- Sound like yourself ( I'll give him this one)
- Say what will confuse people
- Make the plot so confusing that you will have to feel sorry for the readers for picking up the book
The last perception is a joke. Vonnegut states that "our audience requires us to be sympathetic and patient teachers, ever willing to simplify and clarify--whereas we would rather soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales. That is the bad news." So the real explanation is to feel sorry for the reader because they are less informed about the subject that you wrote about. Yes, I do believe that this principle applies very well to the novel.
So it goes.
Feature Film. Good or Bad? No idea.
We all saw the trailer for SH5 in class. Some people thought they would see the movie only based on the trailer and some say they wouldn't. Now what is my opinion? I gotta say, I'm on the fence here. I do agree with most of my classmates on the basis that the trailer was crappy as hell. It was either a fan-made trailer, or the professional trailer maker person at the company was on more cocaine than Huxley. But the trailer worked.
By worked I mean it was effective. Yah it sucked but I'm a guy. We are intrigued by watching war and blood and killing, but were not psychopaths. Who in the right mind could get a good picture of the plot of the novel from a movie trailer. Absolutely nobody. There is more common sense in a pencil than the people who would try to reenact this novel. You are in so many places at once, you have to read the paragraph 3 times over just to understand the present year.
I guess I am sort of bias, well everybody is. We all read the novel and we could make out more of the plot out of the trailer than someone who hasn't read the book. For someone who hasn't read the book, it would look even better. "Ooooo....war, yet futuristic, yet calm, yet....", and on and on they would go until their breath dies out, so it goes, and then they finish with, "Intriguing." They don't know how things will turn out. No one does You can't judge a book by its cover.
When I first saw the Clash of the Titans trailer, (below), I thought it would be a godly movie, pun intended. I honestly thought that the trailer was the best trailer I've ever seen. And I was right. But it was the most disappointing movie I have ever seen. It wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I had so much hope that this would be amazing....and it wasn't. You'll see what I mean. Most effective trailer ever.
Back to SH5. Only because I read the book, there is a chance that I wouldn't see it because I know nobody could physically pull this off. If I hadn't read the book, I would. Like I said, the trailer worked. I would like to see what Vonnegut's opinion on the movie would have been.
So it goes.
By worked I mean it was effective. Yah it sucked but I'm a guy. We are intrigued by watching war and blood and killing, but were not psychopaths. Who in the right mind could get a good picture of the plot of the novel from a movie trailer. Absolutely nobody. There is more common sense in a pencil than the people who would try to reenact this novel. You are in so many places at once, you have to read the paragraph 3 times over just to understand the present year.
I guess I am sort of bias, well everybody is. We all read the novel and we could make out more of the plot out of the trailer than someone who hasn't read the book. For someone who hasn't read the book, it would look even better. "Ooooo....war, yet futuristic, yet calm, yet....", and on and on they would go until their breath dies out, so it goes, and then they finish with, "Intriguing." They don't know how things will turn out. No one does You can't judge a book by its cover.
When I first saw the Clash of the Titans trailer, (below), I thought it would be a godly movie, pun intended. I honestly thought that the trailer was the best trailer I've ever seen. And I was right. But it was the most disappointing movie I have ever seen. It wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I had so much hope that this would be amazing....and it wasn't. You'll see what I mean. Most effective trailer ever.
Back to SH5. Only because I read the book, there is a chance that I wouldn't see it because I know nobody could physically pull this off. If I hadn't read the book, I would. Like I said, the trailer worked. I would like to see what Vonnegut's opinion on the movie would have been.
So it goes.
Could Tralfamadore ever be real?
Peace is an illegitimate term. It is in our human nature to fight. Whether the fighting is for a privilege, a right, or even freedom. Whether it is for a good cause or a bad cause. Or it could be to fight for peace. Whatever the case, fighting will never stop, and worldwide peace will never occur. Vonnegut understands this. But are Tralfamadorians human? Maybe. Physically, no. But is Vonnegut trying to tell us that Earth should be Tralfamadore. Tralfamadore fought for years, and then stopped. Their world is at peace. How? Unexplained.
Now, why do I come across this as a blog topic? My answer: the Mirror of Erised. Confused yet? For all you Harry Potter fans this should be treat. When Harry first discovers this mirror, he's sees his parents. He sees his parents that have been dead for 10 years. Dumbledore tells him that the happiest man in the world would look into this mirror and see nothing but himself. Harry replies, "It shows us want we want, whatever we want.". "Yes, and no. It shows us nothing more or less than than the deepest and most desperate desires of our hearts." If Vonnegut looked into this mirror, he would see a world at peace. But just as Harry does, he knows that this is an unachievable feat. Harry will never see his parents alive again and Vonnegut will never see the world at peace.
This is why I believe that Vonnegut chose to perceive Tralfamadore as the mirror. The comparison as to what someone, in this case Vonnegut, desires to have or to be. Tralfamadore is what is desired but is what is not to be. To be or not to be? That is the question. lol. But that truly is the question.
It is too bad that Earth will be destroyed before peace could ever be close to being achieved.
So it goes.
Now, why do I come across this as a blog topic? My answer: the Mirror of Erised. Confused yet? For all you Harry Potter fans this should be treat. When Harry first discovers this mirror, he's sees his parents. He sees his parents that have been dead for 10 years. Dumbledore tells him that the happiest man in the world would look into this mirror and see nothing but himself. Harry replies, "It shows us want we want, whatever we want.". "Yes, and no. It shows us nothing more or less than than the deepest and most desperate desires of our hearts." If Vonnegut looked into this mirror, he would see a world at peace. But just as Harry does, he knows that this is an unachievable feat. Harry will never see his parents alive again and Vonnegut will never see the world at peace.
This is why I believe that Vonnegut chose to perceive Tralfamadore as the mirror. The comparison as to what someone, in this case Vonnegut, desires to have or to be. Tralfamadore is what is desired but is what is not to be. To be or not to be? That is the question. lol. But that truly is the question.
It is too bad that Earth will be destroyed before peace could ever be close to being achieved.
So it goes.
Fantasy: My One Love ;)
Ahhhh...fantasy! Thou art a heartful hero! Pitted against its heartless arch enemy: Fact and Satire! Who will strive to fulfill the goal of luring the reader into its written clutches? Post your opinion on who you believe will win the fitting duel. This is narrator, signing off!
Fantasy, fantasy, fantasy. Oh how I love you so. If there wasnt fiction to guide me from the reality, I would be the same boring self. Fantasy drifts me on a magic carpet ride to anywhere I want. If I was to write a novel, I would want my plot farthest from reality than I can get. I'm not saying that reality is a terrible place, it just gets boring. I'm getting bored just blogging about it. My childhood was wrapped around the premise of the Harry Potter and Eragon series. I love the fictional universes where anything is possible. Satirical novels that we read this year take place in a fictional universe, but are very close-minded. They create very good settings and plot at the beginning but then drift nowhere. Some to little character development, if you take away 1984's horrible ending. It pretty much stays the same throughout. That is not what my novel's are about. SH5 does a better job of being outside of the box but it seems too real for me. Ya know, besides the unstuck in time part.
My novel would have, of course, the hero, the villain, and the damsel in distress; twists and turns that keep the reader focused and a bit of comedy. Humor is definitely needed in an action packed novel. Not so much as Rush Hour, but an adequate amount to keep it serious. I'm thinking off the top of my head, but a good setting for the novel would be medieval. Yeah, ya can't go wrong with the middle ages. Gypsies, dragons and knights, O MY! The plot would be difficult to decipher at the moment, but I was thinking maybe the son of the king taken by the villain of some sort, and trained to fight on the villain's command to take over the kingdom, but at the same time, trying to regain his own sanity.
Again, it is hard to think of something for a plot in a minimal amount of time (and with so many paths to take), and it might change substantially, but all I'm saying is that if your writing a novel that will lure your readers into wanting more on every page, write a fantasy novel. Pshhhh, fact, give me a break!
And so fantasy has conquered the mighty fact and satire!
So it goes.
Fantasy, fantasy, fantasy. Oh how I love you so. If there wasnt fiction to guide me from the reality, I would be the same boring self. Fantasy drifts me on a magic carpet ride to anywhere I want. If I was to write a novel, I would want my plot farthest from reality than I can get. I'm not saying that reality is a terrible place, it just gets boring. I'm getting bored just blogging about it. My childhood was wrapped around the premise of the Harry Potter and Eragon series. I love the fictional universes where anything is possible. Satirical novels that we read this year take place in a fictional universe, but are very close-minded. They create very good settings and plot at the beginning but then drift nowhere. Some to little character development, if you take away 1984's horrible ending. It pretty much stays the same throughout. That is not what my novel's are about. SH5 does a better job of being outside of the box but it seems too real for me. Ya know, besides the unstuck in time part.
My novel would have, of course, the hero, the villain, and the damsel in distress; twists and turns that keep the reader focused and a bit of comedy. Humor is definitely needed in an action packed novel. Not so much as Rush Hour, but an adequate amount to keep it serious. I'm thinking off the top of my head, but a good setting for the novel would be medieval. Yeah, ya can't go wrong with the middle ages. Gypsies, dragons and knights, O MY! The plot would be difficult to decipher at the moment, but I was thinking maybe the son of the king taken by the villain of some sort, and trained to fight on the villain's command to take over the kingdom, but at the same time, trying to regain his own sanity.
Again, it is hard to think of something for a plot in a minimal amount of time (and with so many paths to take), and it might change substantially, but all I'm saying is that if your writing a novel that will lure your readers into wanting more on every page, write a fantasy novel. Pshhhh, fact, give me a break!
And so fantasy has conquered the mighty fact and satire!
So it goes.
The moment I died when I fell in a puddle, and then I ate a sandwich
Listen,
It is present day, 2011. I am playing my high school soccer game between our own Massey Mustangs and Villanova. A very cloudy, thunderous day with raindrops the size of elephant tears. I was running down the field with the ball, people calling for it down near the goal. I decided to selfishly shoot myself. I embarrassingly missed the ball completely and flew backwards landing in a huge puddle, back first. On impact, I was somewhere else.
It is future time, 2024. I can't see out of one eye from swelling while I am blinded by my own blood streaming down my forehead on the other eye. My legs are tied to the pegs of a wooden chair while my hands are tied to each other around the back rest of the chair. From what I can tell from my limited vision is a cold hand holding a hot, loaded weapon with the barrel pointed right at my forehead. "I'm not going to ask you again. Where is it?", a voice spoke. "I have no idea what you are talking about", I replied. "Fine then." The cock of a gun and the feeling of cold metal on my shaking skin, and then the bullet collided with my forehead and I was walking out of a sandwich shop. So it goes.
Present day, 2011. I am crossing the street, soaking wet, with only one thing on my mind: the savory goodness of a Subway sandwich after a hard fought soccer game. I took out the sandwich out of the packaging halfway across the street when all I hear is horns of the semi-truck headed straight for my path. I close my eyes and I am on the ground, saved by a heroic stranger. I say only one thing, "I owe you my life."
It is present day, 2011. I am playing my high school soccer game between our own Massey Mustangs and Villanova. A very cloudy, thunderous day with raindrops the size of elephant tears. I was running down the field with the ball, people calling for it down near the goal. I decided to selfishly shoot myself. I embarrassingly missed the ball completely and flew backwards landing in a huge puddle, back first. On impact, I was somewhere else.
It is future time, 2024. I can't see out of one eye from swelling while I am blinded by my own blood streaming down my forehead on the other eye. My legs are tied to the pegs of a wooden chair while my hands are tied to each other around the back rest of the chair. From what I can tell from my limited vision is a cold hand holding a hot, loaded weapon with the barrel pointed right at my forehead. "I'm not going to ask you again. Where is it?", a voice spoke. "I have no idea what you are talking about", I replied. "Fine then." The cock of a gun and the feeling of cold metal on my shaking skin, and then the bullet collided with my forehead and I was walking out of a sandwich shop. So it goes.
Present day, 2011. I am crossing the street, soaking wet, with only one thing on my mind: the savory goodness of a Subway sandwich after a hard fought soccer game. I took out the sandwich out of the packaging halfway across the street when all I hear is horns of the semi-truck headed straight for my path. I close my eyes and I am on the ground, saved by a heroic stranger. I say only one thing, "I owe you my life."
Banning books is like banning marijuana
If the government of a particular country bans something that they feel is too inappropriate for the audience of that country, they are just covering up for what they fear. If they ban books, like SH5 or Brave New World or 1984, just to choose at random, they are just covering up for what they fear might become of their country after the readers obtain some of these ideas.
In my opinion, SH5 was banned mostly because the content of the book was inappropriate for the targeted audience. This book contains sexual profanity, course language, and alcohol consumption, but the content isn't the only thing that got it banned. Even though that the theme in the novel which dictates that war is a bad thing wasn't Vonnegut's motive when writing it, it might have come across as a very strong message to those who are against war. The government is very pro-war, and does not want any protestors getting their way.
To relate the profanity back to the other novels that we have read this year, 1984 and Brave New World, the books contain more of the government-satirical-profanity. In either novel, the big idea is that the government has a new, or newer, choice of power. In 1984, its Big Brother, and in BNW, its the....ummm...whatever Mustapha Mond's position was called. The governments in our universe do not want the people under the government to form a mutiny and overthrow them, with the ideas from these novels. Even though these novels would probably not have too much authority in the mind of the believer, these books may add up and eventually obtain power.
Those are some of the reasons why the governments might actually ban books. The only thing is, I don't believe that these books have any threat to the government in any way at all. They are way too minor in the society, then and now. Other countries might disagree. I believe that banning books is very similar to banning marijuana or alcohol during the prohibition. If the government bans something, then the greed instinct, which all of us have, will overpower us. We, as humans, want what we cant have, which means that banning the books would make a greater need for them overall. We could believe that because the government bans them, there might be something hidden within them that the government doesn't want us to know, and we want to know what. To put this into perspective, Frankenstein was banned from half the world because it was, apparently, the scariest movie ever made. We look at it now and we laugh at how people actually believed this was scary. It's as scary as bringing daffodils to your unicorn. So the right decision for the government would be to give us our right to read whatever we want, it would be better for everyone.
And so ends this post.
So it goes.
In my opinion, SH5 was banned mostly because the content of the book was inappropriate for the targeted audience. This book contains sexual profanity, course language, and alcohol consumption, but the content isn't the only thing that got it banned. Even though that the theme in the novel which dictates that war is a bad thing wasn't Vonnegut's motive when writing it, it might have come across as a very strong message to those who are against war. The government is very pro-war, and does not want any protestors getting their way.
To relate the profanity back to the other novels that we have read this year, 1984 and Brave New World, the books contain more of the government-satirical-profanity. In either novel, the big idea is that the government has a new, or newer, choice of power. In 1984, its Big Brother, and in BNW, its the....ummm...whatever Mustapha Mond's position was called. The governments in our universe do not want the people under the government to form a mutiny and overthrow them, with the ideas from these novels. Even though these novels would probably not have too much authority in the mind of the believer, these books may add up and eventually obtain power.
Those are some of the reasons why the governments might actually ban books. The only thing is, I don't believe that these books have any threat to the government in any way at all. They are way too minor in the society, then and now. Other countries might disagree. I believe that banning books is very similar to banning marijuana or alcohol during the prohibition. If the government bans something, then the greed instinct, which all of us have, will overpower us. We, as humans, want what we cant have, which means that banning the books would make a greater need for them overall. We could believe that because the government bans them, there might be something hidden within them that the government doesn't want us to know, and we want to know what. To put this into perspective, Frankenstein was banned from half the world because it was, apparently, the scariest movie ever made. We look at it now and we laugh at how people actually believed this was scary. It's as scary as bringing daffodils to your unicorn. So the right decision for the government would be to give us our right to read whatever we want, it would be better for everyone.
And so ends this post.
So it goes.
Faith or Free Will? <---- see what i did there
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!"
Fate or free will? or in this situation, faith or free will? Faith could mean patriotic, or religious, or so on. From my research of Vonnegut, I would take it as religious.
He is an atheist. He doesn't believe that everything happens for a reason. Rather than having fate control everything, he believes that the person controls his/her own future, which greatly relates to my latest post. Unstuck in time.....maybe his own way of saying that we control our own fate. Examples are included in the last post but they are very good examples, so I'll state one again. Roland Weary's death wish was for someone to avenge his death by killing Billy. Billy later transports himself to the future where he is assassinated. These events could be linked psychologically, within Billy's mind, or could be linked by free will.
This is a rather short post but I believe that the above paragraph states all that needs to be typed. But because it's so short I'll include a picture of a monkey for entertainment. It's one of the few good things about modern times.
So it goes.
Fate or free will? or in this situation, faith or free will? Faith could mean patriotic, or religious, or so on. From my research of Vonnegut, I would take it as religious.
He is an atheist. He doesn't believe that everything happens for a reason. Rather than having fate control everything, he believes that the person controls his/her own future, which greatly relates to my latest post. Unstuck in time.....maybe his own way of saying that we control our own fate. Examples are included in the last post but they are very good examples, so I'll state one again. Roland Weary's death wish was for someone to avenge his death by killing Billy. Billy later transports himself to the future where he is assassinated. These events could be linked psychologically, within Billy's mind, or could be linked by free will.
This is a rather short post but I believe that the above paragraph states all that needs to be typed. But because it's so short I'll include a picture of a monkey for entertainment. It's one of the few good things about modern times.
So it goes.
Tuesday 12 April 2011
Fact or Fiction?!
In order to answer this question, I must refer back near the beginning of the novel when Vonnegut introduces the event resulting in the plane crash. Now, Vonnegut makes it seem as though Billy Pilgram survives, however the aftermath of the crash causes Billy's physical state to transfer himself between time frames in the past, future...... and present. Some might say that the idea is that Billy is actually unstuck in time, aka fact. Codswallop, in my opinion! This plot is as fictional, yet creative, as Harry Potter.
There are many beliefs that pop into my mind as to why Billy "believes" he is unstuck in time. Major mental brain damage is a definite solution. It is very possible that he could have resulted in a tumor, causing hallucinations which overpower his whole mental image of life, just like Izzie Stevens and her struggle with brain cancer in Grey's Anatomy. That's right, I watch Grey's Anatomy! It's a great show! Anyhoo.....she had recently suffered the death of her love and believed her hallucinations of him were just her brain's way of saying that she couldn't let him go. As her life went on, her hallucinations became physical, so physical that her hallucinations of her love became her reality. She could touch him, kiss him and make love to him. It was all real to her, except her roommates were wondering what she was doing with herself in her room...alone. And then, BAM, she finds out she has cancer.
Another way to look at this fictionally is that he never woke up from the plane crash. He can be just dreaming or this is his heaven (not so much a heaven though, is it?). He could have died and this is just a revamp of his past and his belief in what would become of his future from his choices or happenings in the past. These happenings in the past could be Roland Weary's death wish to have someone avenge his death by killing Billy. Billy's mental output of this event could have resulted in his assassination. Or even the Tralfamadorian fantasy. This peaceful world could be the result to Billy's outlook on war. Maybe, maybe not. There might be enough information to justify, there might not. Vonnegut doesn't really define Billy's outlook on war upfront. It's either not there or subliminally hidden.
Without a doubt I believe this plot is fictional to the character. I've described how, but now, why? Personally, I believe Vonnegut to be realist. If he meant this, he meant it fictionally. He went through the realistic horrors of this novel. But was that enough to create a novel. The time travel introduces perplexity and confusement of a reality, causing many twists and dog legs in the plot of this novel. If this was fact, how is it that when in the same cage on Tralfamadore does Wildhack notice when Billy time travels. He is still physically there, its his mental picture within a mental picture. Confusing topic but it works.
And this post is done.
So it goes.
There are many beliefs that pop into my mind as to why Billy "believes" he is unstuck in time. Major mental brain damage is a definite solution. It is very possible that he could have resulted in a tumor, causing hallucinations which overpower his whole mental image of life, just like Izzie Stevens and her struggle with brain cancer in Grey's Anatomy. That's right, I watch Grey's Anatomy! It's a great show! Anyhoo.....she had recently suffered the death of her love and believed her hallucinations of him were just her brain's way of saying that she couldn't let him go. As her life went on, her hallucinations became physical, so physical that her hallucinations of her love became her reality. She could touch him, kiss him and make love to him. It was all real to her, except her roommates were wondering what she was doing with herself in her room...alone. And then, BAM, she finds out she has cancer.
Another way to look at this fictionally is that he never woke up from the plane crash. He can be just dreaming or this is his heaven (not so much a heaven though, is it?). He could have died and this is just a revamp of his past and his belief in what would become of his future from his choices or happenings in the past. These happenings in the past could be Roland Weary's death wish to have someone avenge his death by killing Billy. Billy's mental output of this event could have resulted in his assassination. Or even the Tralfamadorian fantasy. This peaceful world could be the result to Billy's outlook on war. Maybe, maybe not. There might be enough information to justify, there might not. Vonnegut doesn't really define Billy's outlook on war upfront. It's either not there or subliminally hidden.
Without a doubt I believe this plot is fictional to the character. I've described how, but now, why? Personally, I believe Vonnegut to be realist. If he meant this, he meant it fictionally. He went through the realistic horrors of this novel. But was that enough to create a novel. The time travel introduces perplexity and confusement of a reality, causing many twists and dog legs in the plot of this novel. If this was fact, how is it that when in the same cage on Tralfamadore does Wildhack notice when Billy time travels. He is still physically there, its his mental picture within a mental picture. Confusing topic but it works.
And this post is done.
So it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)