(Photo Credit: http://feelingfeelings.wordpress.com)
As this is the first chapter, let me tell you how I work. I am going to post all of my thoughts and questions from each chapter, taken from my own notes. I do not expect you to answer every question...or even answer any of the questions, necessarily. They are here merely to spur thoughts. You can comment on what I've written here or comment on whatever you like related to each chapter. You can even bring in connections to other novels, movies, or your own life. When all is said and done, we should have a pretty decent conversation about each chapter. And so it goes...
First, it's interesting that Vonnegut makes himself a character in his own work. That will pretty much disappear after chapter 1, but you should think about why he would do so.
p. 1: It's odd that in his description of Dresden/Dayton that he mentioned the bone meal so offhandedly...it's probably true, but an odd detail to bring up.
"So it goes." What do you make of this repeated phrase? What does the phrase do to the narrative around it?
What significance do the limerick (p. 2) and the song (p. 3) have?
I like the anti-glacier comment by Harrison Starr. Sad, but true...
What differences do you notice between the narrator (Vonnegut here) and O'Hare? Anything of significance?
I love that the narrator admits to drunk-dialing operators to stalk former friends and lovers...
What is the irony of Edgar Derby's sad tale?
What significance is there in the fact that he outlined the story in crayon?
Why is what he learned in college so important?
What does an anthropologist do?
What is important about his first news story? Why did he share that particular story? What was his tone as he related this story?
The Dresden bombing was worse than Hiroshima? How so? Is this a fact?
p. 10 -- why does he repeat the phrase, "I know"?
What is significant about the list of jobs Vonnegut has had since the war?
Eheu, fugaces labuntur anni. What does this mean?
I thought it was odd to compare carp with atomic submarines...
Mary has a cold demeanor upon Vonnegut's arrival...she then seems angry...then she unleashes her anger. What do you think of her as a character, and do you think her outburst was understandable/justifiable?
What is the irony of the information from the book by Mary Endell (p. 17-18)?
Great Quote: "And I asked myself about the present: how wide it was, how deep it was, and how much was mine to keep."
Theodore Roethke's Words for the Wind and Erika Ostrovsky's Celine and His Vision ... Any significance in the allusion to these works?
52 comments:
I found the repeated use of the phrase “So it goes” quite interesting. The narrator, whether it is Billy or Vonnegut, uses this phrase after anytime death is mentioned. This gives death a somewhat insignificant quality. It makes it seem like death is not really important and doesn’t really change much. Vonnegut is consistent in his use of this phrase, even when it may seem out of place. The phrase itself seems somewhat lazy and relaxed. The phrase expresses the narrator’s acceptance that death is going to happen and there is nothing you can really do to change that fact. I think the phrase “So it goes” helps to set the mood for the novel, and expresses a new way to think about death within a society that is normally upset by the very thought of it.
I also liked the quote “And I asked myself about the present: how wide it was, how deep it was, and how much was mine to keep.” Time seems to be a major subject in this novel. It is brought up in various ways, but one of the major ideas is that humans see time incorrectly. The fact that Vonnegut imagines time in a way completely different to the normal person is something I find very interesting. To most people the present is just an instant. Each new moment is the present and the moment before is now the past. Vonnegut looks at the present as an object that has width and depth; the present is something he wants to keep, even if it is just a small part of it. Later Vonnegut admits that as a human he has to believe what is on clocks and calendars. Even later Vonnegut references a Gideon Bible; he describes how it is human to look back, even when you aren’t supposed to. He then ends the chapter by saying that people aren’t supposed to look back, and how he is not going to anymore. Vonnegut claims that this book will be a failure because it was written by someone who was looking back. He then lists the first and last lines of the novel. Later he fills in the missing pieces of time between the two lines.
I cannot seem to put this novel down. At first, I didn't quite know how to take this book. Is it a science fiction novel? Is it war book? Is it something in between? I'm still not really sure, but it's unique to any classics I've previously read. It is definitely a different look on World War II. I love the way Vonnegut makes time and death seem trivial in the grand scheme of the universe. He shows this with the consistent phrase "So it goes" whenever anyone dies. Maybe Vonnegut wrote it this way because during the war, death must have begun to seem insignificant. There were so many who died that it just seemed casual. As the saying goes "The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic.” Perhaps Vonnegut was satirizing this casual state of mind in the midst of destruction and death.
My favorite quote from this chapter is definitely the part where Vonnegut is describing the biblical story about Lot and he says referring to Lot's wife, "But she did look back, and I love her for that, because it was so human" (22). I feel that this quote is an obvious foreshadowing of the theme of humanity I've begun to notice already in just the first half of the book. It makes humanity look flawed and foolish, but it also makes you feel a little proud at the same time. I’m not exactly sure why I feel proud of this. Maybe I feel proud because it shows that compassion will always be embedded somewhere in humanity despite its many imperfections. I’m not sure if this theme will be reflected in the rest of the book, but it’s what I have been able to extrapolate so far. Nevertheless, I’m sure it will be interesting either way.
I agree, Kayla...that is also a great quote...one that gave me some pause when I read it. And most people who know the story see Lot's wife as an example of someone who did not listen to God...but Vonnegut recognizes the humanity -- the compassion -- in that act of looking back. Truly interesting perspective on that age-old Biblical story.
I agree with Kayla on the foreshadowing from the quote about looking back. At the end of the quote Vonnegut states, " and i love her for that, because it was so human" (22). I believe this is what the novel will be based off of because he claims that he likes the idea that Lot is showing her humanity. However, i did not like the idea that after that statement he then writes, "People aren't supposed to look back. I'm certainly not going to do it anymore"(22). If he was so into the idea that she looked back because it was a human thing to do, why wouldn't he like the idea of himself doing it? Yes, she was turned into a "pillar of salt" but he knows the compassion behind what Lot did and should want to show that compassion for humanity as well.
I think that the idea of human error, or just human nature, is a predominant theme throughout the book. Not only do I think human nature is a theme, I think that the consequences of human nature are also exposed in this novel. The reader can see this even in the first chapter. It can be seen in the story of Edgar Derby; in his human nature he stole, and he was consequently shot. Vonnegut also alludes to the biblical story of Lot's wife. She was told not to look back upon the cities, but in her human nature she did so and was turned into a pillar of salt.
I'm normally not one to be interested in "required summer reading," but I've found myself engaged in this book like none other. The shift from the first chapter to the second chapter really confused me, but I think the novel would not be the same without it. The first chapter sets up so many themes and so many feelings for the reader. As one reads, he or she feels numb to death and ashamed of humanity. But even though these feelings are raw and gritty, the reader just wants to keep reading. I don't know if one could feel the same way about the novel without the first chapter.
At first glance of this book I thought oh, great another "Red Badge of Courage" a book that has so many hidden meaning that you'll have to read it twice just to get half of them. Then I read the first chapter and couldn't help but read the next. The flow of his writing reminded me a little of the poet Emily Dickenson. She got you attention to words with dashes were Vonnegut does it with switching the scene. I love how the flow seemed to be not edited. It had hard edges that were perfectly placed.
I think Mary is an interesting, if not necessarily complex, character. It is obvious that Mary disapproves of Vonnegut because he is writing about war, and she believes that he will portray it in the most glorious of fashions. Mary could be said to represent the anti-war portion of society because due to her comments, "You were just babies then!" and ect., the reader can infer that she is strongly opposed to war. To some extent I believe that Mary's outburst was justified. Often, novels and movies do portray war as being glorious and heroic, when the reality is often vastly different. Mary's outburst is justifiable because she doesn't want to see another audience being swayed toward believing that war is wonderful rather than terrible.
I could be totally off base here, but I think the fact that Vonnegut outlined his story in different colors of crayon is extremely important. To me, crayons symbolize childhood and childish wishes to be able to color in the world however we should choose. Because Vonnegut outlined this story in crayon, I feel like he is emphasizing the fact that the characters in this story were not grown men, but were essentially children. It strikes me as particularly important that each character was outlined in their own color. And as various things happened, some of the colors just stopped, as if to represent that the characters they represented were deceased. It is also important to notice that Vonnegut at first says that this is the "best" outline has ever made, but then changes it to "prettiest." This seems significant because it feels like Vonnegut it acknowledging the fact that the pretty things are not always the most substantial or the best. In fact, it feels like Vonnegut is poking fun as his own novel by suggesting that it is "pretty" rather than the "best".
I love that Vonnegut uses the phrase "so it goes" to lighten the mood of an otherwise sad, desperate situation. It gives the reader something to hold onto when it seems likes everything else in the book is falling away. By using this phrase, Vonnegut gives off a carefree attitude and helps the reader realize that death in war was not obsolete. It happened every day, like it or not. It showed that the soldiers were forced to take death lightly.
I think that the list of jobs that Vonnegut has had since the war has a huge significance. It shows that he is restless and that war has made him unable to be tied down.
I also agree that "And I asked myself about the present: how wide it was, how deep it was, and how much was mine to keep." is a powerful quote. It relates Vonnegut's tendency to switch decades to the narrator's feelings about the planet Tralfamadore.
The significance in the fact that he outlined his story in crayon is that he created, in essence, a flow chart of people’s lives and how they came to their ends on the battlefield. As he creates this on the back of the wallpaper, he relives the end moment. I think that he may be trying to remember what had actually happened. When he calls his old war buddy, Bernard O’Hare, he asks O’Hare to tell him things that he forgot. This may just be a way of remembering how things went.
A part of me also wonders if Vonnegut is using the phrase “so it goes” to trail off from the topic. In some books that I have read, people with mental disabilities often use something to distract themselves from harsh realities. Like in The Secret Life of Bees, when a topic with a negative theme was brought up, such as someone being put in jail, a character named May would start to sing “Oh! Susanna.” I think it just helps the narrator cope with the turmoil inside after being through a war and witnessing so many deaths, kind of like a safety blanket.
After glancing at Vonnegut’s title, Slaughterhouse Five, I wondered if this book would hold my interest and surprisingly it did. The first couple chapters confused me but after I made sense of what I could, I went actually back and read the beginning chapters again. During the second time around, I understood that Vonnegut had made himself a character for the first chapter only and thought it was brilliant of him. As to why Vonnegut would do that I’m still not sure. It only makes be question if he really truly believes in the Tralfamadorians and in time travel.
I also like Starr’s anti-glacier comment and completely agree. I wish that in this world not a single war occurred but that’s just not going to happen. Vonnegut’s comment in reply to Starr’s (“And even if wars didn’t keep coming like glaciers, there would still be plain old death.” p.12) sadly also couldn’t be truer. Everything comes to an end sometime and if a war is inevitable, I’d like actions to be made to end it as soon as possible. The Dresden bombing was a sad thing but a necessary war action in a way.
I think the irony of the information from the book written by Mary Endell was ironic because it describes in detail of the destruction of Dresden from a previous war. Mary Endell remarks how much of the city was destroyed from a Prussian siege in 1760, yet she had no way of knowing that the damage inflicted by the Prussians was minor compared to the damage inflicted by the bombings in World War II. Its ironic because she states the devastation of Dresden was "boundless" when in fact the devastation was limited compared with the bombings that would later occur.
The narrator repeats the phase "I know" to emphasize the fact that he...knows. The narrator, who was in fact present in the war, was obviously a little irritated that some professor was lecturing him on information that he had already seen and experienced firsthand. The narrator repeats the line in order to shut the man up, to let the professor know that he knows his stuff, perhaps even better than the professor himself.
The irony of Edgar Derby's sad fate is that while Dresden is burning (bombs were dropped by US and UK Air Force planes) and death and destruction are everywhere, Derby is somehow spotted in the midst of the chaos and is arrested for a stealing a teapot. He is then put to trial and dies by firing squad. The war apparently confused everyone's logic... the police were more concerned with this petty theft than the smell of flesh and screams of terror. Irony.
At first, I found Vonnegut's use of the phrase "so it goes" funny. As I continued reading, though, I realized a pattern in its use. Vonnegut uses "so it goes" after every account of someone's death. This gives the story a desolate and numb feeling. It shows that the narrator has separated himself from his inner feelings. I believe this relates to the quote at the beginning of the book, which says, "The cattle are lowing,the baby awakes. But the little Lord Jesus no crying he makes." This quote is meant to show that the baby cannot cry anymore, even in the midst of sadness. The phrase "so it goes" even relates to the Tralfamadorian view that death is just a moment in time. Maybe the narrator takes death so lightly because he believes that it is truly insignificant in the grand spectrum of things, just like the aliens from Tralfamadore.
"So it goes" is always mentioned after something that he seems to feel awkward saying. Any time that he talks about death, or even the portrait of the woman and the pony, something out of normal context he seems to use that as a distraction or to change the subject.
It seems as if this is the repeated phrase "so it goes" began in chapter one and is repeated throughout the novel. I agree with others that Vonnegut uses this phrase after a death is mentioned. I also believe that Vonnegut uses this expression because he does not want to describe the events of the death that occur. Rather than elaborate on the death that occurs, Vonnegut just uses the phrase, "so it goes" and returns on with his story.
I didn't enjoy the first chapter because of how it was more or less an apology to how the rest of the story was written. However I did enjoy the little stories and how Vonnegut added to the story of this tragedy. His descriptions of events such as listening to the radio were given such great detail which made this little events enjoyable.
When Vonnegut uses the phrase "so it goes" after every death that is told in the novel it adds sort of a sad feeling to the book.It's like the narrator emotionally cut himself off from the world. It could be just one of the many side effects of the war. The narrator could very well be crazy for all we know.
As many have already mentioned, Vonnegut mostly uses the phase "so it goes' after someone dies or death is mentioned. I feel like the reason for this was to show in war how in insignificant death is, that people will die and that is just how it's going to be in war... so it goes.
I keep rereading the limerick, not quite understanding it. But from what I can understand, he's using the limerick to emphasize his trouble writing the story on Dresden. Comparing how he thought it would be easy to write about Dresden but he's having trouble doing so. Just like in the limerick how the man's 'tool' will not pee. Both being tasks that should be simple, yet for reasons are not.
The phrase "so it goes" is one of my favorite quotes from the book. It is amazing that such a simple phrase can have such a powerful impact on the mood of a paragraph when added to the end of it. The novel would not be complete without the commonly stated phrase. It makes the novel easier to read in some sense. Almost as if the words can be more easily absorbed. It takes away the serious edge that would scare some people away and leaves just enough there that it grabs at your attention, but does not leave you dwelling on the lower points of the novel. Instead, it keeps you wanting to move forward by lightening the mood just a bit. Such a powerful message can be found in these three short words. There are similar phrases that we hear every day with similar meanings. We use them when we do not know what else to say because there is no explanation. Phrases such as “it was God’s will” and “death is part of life” provide us with the same feeling that some things are beyond our control. Thus, we are left with two options: either we can dwell on the unpleasant parts of life, or we can move on and enjoy its pleasures.
The first chapter, to me, seems like a journal. It skips around and is jumbled, almost like Vonnegut is just writing whatever he thinks. He often includes things that may have nothing to do with the story and were written because his thoughts led to that memory. I also have noticed that while Vonnegut seems to want to remember the war and write about it, O'Hare seems to want to forget about it. Vonnegut seems to be living in the past, wanting to relive memories, while O'Hare seems to just want to move on with his life.
Obviously, "so it goes" is used after death is indicated...but WHY?!!!?? To me, saying so it goes, would be used to say that someone said something happened but a person is not sure if it is true or a fact. Or to act as if whatever happened was not a big deal at all. Is the author saying that death is not important, or real? Or is it extremely important?
Katelin W: You say that this quote makes the book easier to read and make sense? And that it lightens the mood in a way, well maybe it is supposed to make the reader ponder that death that has occured and make the book more complicated...
Is the narrator drunk while stuck in the motel in Boston? He said he was trying to finish his book that he didn't think he'd ever finish, but he did finish the book. He also said it was a failure, so why read the whole book to the reader of "Slaughterhouse Five?" I assume he is drunk writing this because he mentioned he always drinks while writing. But he did not throw this book away... Why?
The phrase "So it goes" is used to lighten the serious mood created by the discussion of death. Every time a death is reported, "So it goes" soon follows by either Billy or Vonnegut. In the time during the war, death was very common and not a significant occurrence. This statement just proves the fact that people during this time period took death very nonchalantly.
An anthropologist studies humanity, natural sciences, and social sciences. They look for patterns in ancestry, physical traits and differences in groups of humans.
"So it goes" was a reoccurring phrase that I am personally sick of reading. The novel continually restates the refrain "So it goes" I realized when death occurs. I also noticed it when one subject is in transition to another subject. But in the end I feel like it is just something to say to explain the unexplained (if that makes sense). It reminded me of my mom saying "I don't know what to tell you" when she can't explain something, but instead "So it goes" is used.
I think when the speaker, whether Billy or Vonnegut, says the saying “So it goes” he is trying to get across how each little moment that is described is just another moment in time. Time is a big part of the novel and using that phrase over and over makes everything seem so insignificant or like it is what it is. This saying seems to especially be used after a death occurs. I found that interesting.
I agree with Shelby about the repeated phrase “So it goes”. I also noticed that it is used after the subject of death comes up. This phrase gave me an idea of the mood and tone that this book will possess. Making death seem like it’s a normal and an everyday thing shows that the narrator is accepting of death and other things that are a part of life. It shows a different way to think about the things that happen in this world. The normal reaction to death is sad and mournful, but saying “So it goes” shows that it can be taken as a fact of life.
Truthfully, the saying "so it goes" is starting to annoy me! Part of the reasoning behind this may be because I don't know the real meaning behing these three words that keep popping up. But we can make guesses as to what it is trying to conclude - and I agree with what everyone else says. It creates such a powerful impact at the end or at the middle of a paragraph or passage. I also noticed how it is used after something sad has occured, such as a death. It makes such a tragedy seem like everyday life, like it's "no big deal". But I mean, when you're surrounded by death everyday like the soldiers in the novel, death is not something that you can allow to weigh heavily on you. You have to take it lightly to keep going yourself, and to survive.
"so it goes." it's pretty cynical, but when you've experienced all the things billy has, being cynical is expected. it's an easy way to shrug something off. but it's completely true, things do always, well, go. even if it seems like the end of the end of the world, it never is.
he repeats "i know" because he was there. he had to use the soap and the candles, he experienced german hostility. but the professor had just read an article, or looked at a few pictures, he knew about it, but he didn't know it.
the list of jobs pokes fun at how tough we think our lives, our jobs are, when compared to the war, it's all very soft and easy.
while mary's prejudice isn't very justified, human prejudice usually isn't, and her opinion on war literature sure seemed to be strong. i think she would really appreciate the final book.
I would have to agree with Jason's comment up above. The way Vonnegut described little details did make them more enjoyable and really painted a mental picture for me of everything that was going on. I also thought the fact that Vonnegut implemented himself into the story was interesting. I feel like he put himself in the first chapter to give it more real-life experiences and authenticity. I could be totally wrong but that's about the best reason I can come up with.
I feel that Vonneguet using the phrase "so it goes" after every tragic event that occurs, shows just how detached from life that Billy is. I also think that by using the phrase it downplays death in the story, making it unimportant almost like a minor inconvenience. Billy is so detached from his life that not even someones death registers as important to him. Vonnegut sets a very somber mood for the novel by using "so it goes" repeatedly, i have begun to feel sorry for Billy in the fact that nothing can make him feel much anymore.
After reading the first chapter, I was a little confused. I did put everything together and I realized that Vonnegut made himself a character. I kind of liked how he did this because it shows his voice and his experience at Dresden. One thing that really bothered me was the phrase “so it goes.” It is used whenever death is mentioned (which is very frequently). I don’t like this phrase because it seems to give death a light quality. Personally, I do not think death is an easy thing to deal with; this makes me wonder why this phrase is used so often…?
Reading the first chapter I was really drawn to Mary. Although she is a small character I loved her motherly nature. When Vonnegut entered her house with the girls her first priority was to make sure the kids were entertained and taken care of. I loved when Vonnegut was discussing his book she immediately went on the defense about how he and her husband were so young when fighting in the war, and she was worried he was going to “glamorize” his experience in the war. I agreed with her when she said he will write about them being men instead of babies. . “She did not want her babies or anybody else’s babies killed in wars”(15). Her motherly instincts kicked in when she realized in the war they were very young and naïve acting like the kids playing in her house instead of men fighting in a war.
The phrase “so it goes on” holds little significance right now, and it very hard for me to understand the meaning, but I think by then end of the novel it will have a lot of meaning. As many people have already said it is mentioned after death, which leaves a sort of an uncomfortable feeling. Its almost as if the narrator is uncomfortable talking about death, and is just trying get himself off the hook of talking about it anymore.
The phrase, "So it goes" has a distant and uncaring connotation, in my opinion. The author uses it with a casual indifference whenever a character dies. This seems to show that death is a normal part of war, and no longer has an emotional toll on the author. This is significant in proving that war has physical, as well as a psychological impact on all who are involved in it.
This is my second time reading the book, and I think I like it even more the second time around. I see a lot of people are talking about the way the phrase "So it goes" and how some like it and some don't, and I personally love it. I like the way it's used as a way to say whatever happens happens, the world will keep turning afterwards. You can't go back and change it, so there's no point in dwelling on it. So, kind of like Kayla L says, he does use it to "get off the hook" and not talk about it anymore, but it's also a way of saying there's no reason to talk about it anymore.
I agree with Grace about Harrison Starr’s anti- glacier comment. I loved the comparison between these two seemingly incomparable subjects and couldn’t agree more with it. It does seem like war is never easy to stop and they always keep coming, one after the other, year after year. War has been a part of my life since the second grade and it really does seem like it never is going to end. What would life be without war stories in the news headlines or consuming every topic on the nightly news? It makes me angry when people believe presidential candidates just because they claim they can bring an end to the war. One person cannot bring an end to a war and never will be able to. I can then go back to the brilliant comparison of glaciers and wars and say that is this is due to the fact that wars are “as easy to stop as glaciers” and that one person could never possibly stop a war, or a glacier as a matter of fact, by themselves. I wish that war and death never happened and that people got along and lived forever, but that is never going to happen. Death and war are two parts in our way of life and are never going to go away.
I’ve noticed a lot of people bringing up the phrase, “So it goes..”. I noticed this too as I was reading the story. I agree with everybody that Vonnegut seems to use this phrase to dismiss the deaths of many of the characters. It’s almost like he tries to keep the story moving and not stay on the subject of death. He shows no sort of feeling for other characters’ deaths and acts as if it is just a normal part of life.
The meaning for the phrase, “Eheu, fugaces labuntur anni.”, is “Alas, our fleeting years pass away.” This is significant because it explains a major theme in the story. It explains how short life is and yet there are people who are barely old enough to be considered adults that are brought into the war and they waste their years away fighting for something that seems never-ending.
So in the first few pages of the book theres a part where Harrison Star says, "Why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead?" The narrater says it means that tyring to stop a war is like trying to stop a glacier. The narrator agrees but I'm not so sure that I do. I'm not saying that wars are easy to stop because the majority of people know that it's not, but I am saying that there are ways to stop it. Sometimes you hear of peace treaties and other things that help stop or prevent war from further happening with certain people. You just have to be able to compromise and make an agreement that works for everyone. There really isn't room for being stuborn or argumentative because if you can't come up with something then war is bound to happen. Now as for glaciers, we really don't have ways to stop them. We can't really stop them from forming. However, as I said before, we have ways of preventing war. So I do believe there is a point in writing anti-war books. Maybe someday people will eventually see that war doesn't exactly get us anywhere and we would be better off working things out instead of fighting.
The phrase "so it goes on" seems to be a popular topic to blog about, so I too will share my feelings on the matter. After seeing the phrase a few times I caught on to the fact that it was important. At this point in the story I don’t feel like it has made a huge impact, but I have a feeling that later on the refrain will become more and more important. I like the phrase in general because of how genuine it is, because in reality, no matter what happens life goes on. Which also is significant because I noticed that the phrase is written after someone dies. It seems sad to me that Vonnegut doesn’t take time to mourn for the loss of anyone, he just has the attitude of “so it goes on.”
I also agree with Kayla about Mary. I was captivated by her character and I feel as if she is really important to the story. Vonnegut was so affected by her words that he created an additional title to his book. Her genuine motherly concern struck me as very pure in a story that had up until that point been mostly only about war stories. It made it more interesting to read that section of the chapter because it was more dramatic than the other parts. I feel like the outburst from Mary was very important to Vonnegut because it changed the tone of what he was writing after she shared her feelings about the soldiers being children, in her mind.
I agree with Heather about the quote "so it goes". I just don't understand why they indicate those certain words portraying to death?! I agree how Heather was saying so it goes would be used to say that someone said something happened but a person is not sure if it is true or a fact. I think the quote is supposed to make us contemplate more on the subject of death and the book in general. I am enjoying this book a lot because it's so different from any of the other books we have had to read for English classes!
First off I would like to agree with Mr. Earl with how odd it is that Vonnegut starts his novel with himself as a character, which disappears after the first chapter. The whole first chapter to me does not seem like a typical first chapter in a novel and i found it very annoying to follow it. It reminded me more of a prelude, but not much I can do to change it. Out of the phrase "so it goes" I make it that the death before it is just a fact from history and is the narrator’s way of moving on past the subject of death, which can be difficult. The significance of the song is that it can be repeated in a loop on and on. This links with me to Vonnegut’s mind. I mean he spent so many years working on a book he knew he would write, but the loop of it in his mind kept replaying and he couldn't put it to words. I'll end by saying that Mary's outburst is justifiable because she is stating something she firmly believes in.
As a lot of people have already mentioned, the phrase “so it goes” seems to be used to sort of shrug off the deaths of characters. This emphasizes the fact that death is a part of everyday life and that the world keeps moving on regardless. This is an amazing phrase and one of my favorites in the book so far.
I like the comment about anti-glacier wars, too. I’ve never thought about it like that, but glaciers really are the perfect way to describe a war: unstoppable. I also like that fact that Vonnegut said that wars were as easy to stop as glaciers when both wars and glaciers are, in fact, quite impossible to stop. It’s kind of...ironic, for lack of a better word.
I loved the line after Starr’s comment: “And even if wars didn’t keep coming like glaciers, there would still be death.” Another sad truth... Again, Vonnegut treats death as a regular occurrence, and the world keeps turning.
It is interesting that Vonnegut always says "and so it goes." I think that the emotional weight of the war is too much for him, or anyone to bear and this is his way of pushing it from his mind. Vonnegut says this phrase after very serious or upsetting news. I believe that it is a way for Vonnegut to pretend to forget the suffering of the war, whether he experienced it or someone around him did.
I find the allusion to The Bible relevant to World War Two. Vonnegut says that the world was better off without the cities that God burned and overthrew. He reasons that there were vile people living there. I think that Vonnegut connects this passage to the war because of the massacre that took place. It goes back to him saying "and so it goes" because he tries to use reason to forget his experiences. It was an extremely tramatic experience and he looks for ways to make it more sensible and logical in his mind.
Post a Comment