 |
| Photo source: http://motivequest.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 on your thinking. 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.
Why do you think he mentioned the bone meal so offhandedly? It's probably an honest description, 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?
What do you think of the anti-glacier comment by Harrison Starr?
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 the narrator 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? Do a little research and let me know what you discovered about this wartime atrocity.
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? Why is this phrase used?
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? Look up a synopsis of these works and their authors and try to make the connection to what is happening in this story.
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.
Why do you think he mentioned the bone meal so offhandedly? It's probably an honest description, 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?
What do you think of the anti-glacier comment by Harrison Starr?
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 the narrator 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? Do a little research and let me know what you discovered about this wartime atrocity.
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? Why is this phrase used?
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? Look up a synopsis of these works and their authors and try to make the connection to what is happening in this story.
113 comments:
Mary O’Hare definitely had a cold demeanor upon Vonnegut’s arrival, but it was quite warranted. What Vonnegut and his fellow comrades neglect to understand is the fact the Mary O’Hare is a mother. A mother who loves her children. The old adage states, “Bears don’t usually attack humans—but get between a mother and her cub, and she’ll tear straight through you.” Mary O’Hare did nothing but prove this statement to be ever so true. She and many others have always resented the Vietnam War, and hated the fact that Vonnegut and his comrades were shuttled off to fight some unbeknownst Civil War for a communist right in the middle of the Red Scare. Regardless of whether their enlistment was by choice or not, Mary O’Hare feels that they were nothing more than mere children themselves, much like her own.
Vonnegut repeats the phrase "So it goes" a lot throughout the chapter. Whenever he adds that phrase it makes it seem like the topic he is talking about is no big deal. The part that stuck out to me the most was when he said: "So he was hoisted into the air and the floor of the car went down, dropped out from under him, and the top of the car squished him. So it goes (9)." He is talking about something so gruesome, but yet he makes it seem so petty when he says: "So it goes." I think this line was used to show how desensitized he was after the war and to show how horrible the war really was.
This chapter talked a lot about Vonnegut's past and how he got to be where he is today. There was a lot of irony in this chapter already. What I find interesting is that Vonnegut wants so badly to write a book about something he vaguely remembers and that not too many people know or necessarily care about. I find it weird that he is so into anti-war when he himself was in it and thinks that a single book could help the situation. Harrison Starr compares the anti-war book to an anti-glacier book because just like a glacier, no matter what you say or do, war is something that cannot be stopped or gotten rid of. Vonnegut also shows that not many big things phase him. He comes off as a careless man who has seen it all. He proves this by constantly using the phrases "so it goes" and "and so on".
The limerick and song are both about a man who is stuck in a repetitive loop and finds his life in stagnation. I think Vonnegut included them to show how his obsession with writing about Dresden has put him in a loop. I think he realizes that what he says he will do, and what he actually does, are two separate things. He mentions how useless the Dresden part of his life is, but that it is still so tempting to write about. By adding the limerick and song he’s laughing at himself. Laughing at a man whose obsessions and life’s work have ruined his life.
I do love the use of "So it goes" at the end of your explanation on these comments. More seriously though, I've noticed throughout both this chapter and next chapter that he will use the phrase "So it goes..." at the end of his sections. At the time of this comment I've read through chapter 3 and I haven't noticed any reason for Vonnegut to introduce himself into the novel. It's a good background for the novel but it doesn't feel necessary so far, if anything just filler. The idea behind the present is incredibly interesting. To think about everything that is or could be happening at this very moment, and how much you'll witness of it or how much you'll experience. For example, at this moment a baby could be born, while a car accident just stopped traffic, and all the while you're reading this comment and some dog is marking his territory. Just how expansive the present is is incredible, and it just makes room for the future.
I am not sure how I feel about this chapter being written differently than the others. It's a strange perspective shift to start with the author and then go on to fictional characters. It's almost as if Vonnegut wanted to tell two different stories but knew that one would not work without the other. I'm curious if at any other points in the book it slips back into Vonnegut's perspective. I enjoy the honesty in this chapter, and though fiction can be honest as well, sometimes more honest in a way, I prefer this chapter over the others I have read. I want to know more about Vonnegut's life than I do his fictional characters.
The city of Dresden, located in east Germany was heavily bombed during World War 2 even though it was not of significant military or industrial importance. The Dresden bombing was actually more than one bombing, there were a total of seven bombings to that city. Four bombings occurred February 13th through the 15th, 1945 then there were two on March 2nd and the final one occurred on April 17th 1945. It was estimated that around 25,000 people died in the bombings and some argue that this bombing was worse than Hiroshima and I can see why. It would seem that this city was bombed solely based on revenge in my opinion, because Germany bombed England a lot during the war and destroyed many of its cities in the “Battle of Britain” so it only seemed fairly England and America return the favor. Many innocent lives were lost when really the city was not of much importance unlike Hiroshima, which was a significant city both militarily and industrially. Hiroshima was home to the headquarters of Shunroku Hata’s Second General Army which protected much of southern Japan. The death toll of Hiroshima was much higher though, it was estimated that around 150,000 died.
The main difference between the two was that fact that Hiroshima was bombed in order to get Japan to surrender and end the war, while Dresden was more of a slaughter of innocent people as a means of getting back at the Germans for the destruction of many British cities earlier in the war. Bombing a cities of little importance to the war was definitely unjustified on our part and we should be ashamed of it.
Honestly I truly believe we will never be able to obtain world peace because there will always be tensions between people about something. Some things won’t be large enough to cause wars but eventually it tensions between people gets to high someone may act rashly. Just look at how World War one started, the assassination of one man, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, by Gavrilo Princip, a Yugoslav nationalist. Tensions were occurring before he made the rash decision leading to all out was between the nations, Austria-Hungary at the time already had rising tensions with the Balkans many years before, it was only a matter of time before someone acted upon it. Pretty quickly after many nations started taking sides simply based on who their rivals joined, war broke out and after many lives were lost the war ended. Even after that war ended tensions were still high because the nations couldn’t reach a peace agreement that was treated everyone equally with war damages etc. There are always these constant tensions between people, whether its beliefs, religious values, and government the list goes on. No matter how hard we try it seems the threat of war always exists around us, we might not always hear about it but somewhere in the world there’s someone not happy about the way things are, whether they act upon it or not depends on them. (Speaking of WW1, the 100 year anniversary of it is on June 28th, the day of the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand)
So far the book has an interesting start to say the least. Shifting perspectives from the author to the fictional characters was rather unusual; however, it didn't seem to add anything to the story yet. I'm hoping that the connection will mean something in later chapters because as of now, that section is just filler. I'm also not sure why the author insists on repeating the phrase "and so it goes". As far as being a first chapter goes, it does its job fairly well. It intrigues the reader by shifting the perspective to the author instead of a character within the story.
Kurt Vonnegut- and I draw a blank. He is a man of many layers, and truly is deeper than any ocean or lake, while appearing like a shallow puddle. No simple word can describe him, or a sentence. He has a complex mind, mixed with the twisted images of war, which many would think would make for a jumbled mess. To some degree, parts of his life are a little mixed up, but doesn't everyone’s life have some inconsistencies? So, by all basic means, he should be crazy, or a PTSD army man due to this combination right? Yet as we read his writing, we see not jumbled mess, but organized deliberateness. A message. A message of “We know war is bad, and war will never stop. But, I can show you how bad it really is, and maybe it will help. But maybe it won’t, which is okay too.” As far as the first chapter goes, thrusting his thoughts into the birth of the novel gave you a background. It establishes his purpose, voice, and demeanor. We learn he is witty, sarcastic, and somewhat pessimistic, but also dark, deep, and expressive. I have high expectations for his writing, and strongly hope he uses humor and intelligence as the forefront of his book.
Chapter 1 of Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse 5” shows a background and past of Vonnegut in that it is almost a horror story. This chapter is so deep in that there are vivid descriptions depicting some events he went through. It’s really amazing to get someone’s perspective of WWII because they were right in the middle of it. I feel as though he needs to focus more on his life rather than his fictional characters. It would be a lot more meaningful, because when he does speak about his own past it is very intriguing. Overall, it is a good opening chapter to a story to come. I love studying conflicts and wars so I am excited for the story to come.
When I first came across a death in chapter one, "His mother was incinerated in the Dresden fire storm," (2), I was surprised that he mentioned it so flippantly. Then afterward, he simply said "So it goes," add if death was unavoidable and an unimportant occurrence in one's life, which I suppose it is, if you think about it. Anyways, the first couple of times I read this, I sort of laughed about it under my breath then immediately felt awful because, what the heck? This guy just made me laugh at these deaths simply because of how he himself responded to them! I believe that's why he wrote then like that, though. To show that death was, in fact, unavoidable. Death is the only constant in every life, the only thing that is unpreventable but still comes unexpectedly. Her time was coming to go, she went, so it goes.
When I saw the quote "And I asked myself about the present: how wide it was, how deep it was, and how much was mine to keep" (18), I knew it would become a topic of discussion on the class blog. I've always found the concept of time to be fascinating, and this quote about the present made me think. Most of us have a similar perception of time -- we see the past as a vast expanse of land that only grows larger as time progresses and we see the future as a realm of infinite possibilities and outcomes. And unlike the past and the future, the present, as most would agree, is fleeting. However, the present is much larger than we give it credit for. We see the present as one single moment in time, but it is instead composed of billions of moments coinciding with one another. As I type this comment, a father is teaching his little girl how to ride her bike without training wheels, a young couple is out on their first date, and an elderly woman is whispering out her last words to her loved ones. The present is just as vast and endless as the past and future are. The only reason why it seems so small is because only a fraction of the present is ours to keep.
Harrison Starr's comment about wars being like glaciers stood out to me greatly. I thought it was a very closed minded statement that I, clearly, do not agree with. Well, to an extent I do not agree. I don't necessarily think we will ever completely get rid of war but I also think there are ways to minimize it, so to speak. Relating war to a glacier is simply not right. My brother is entering the Marines Infantry within the next couple of months; if someone were to make a statement of that sort to me I would find it highly insulting. However, I'm sure Starr did not mean it in a disrespectful context, but I just do not think war should ever be related to something as belittling as a glacier. We should all be doing everything we can to prevent more wars from starting/continuing- even if it is just writing a book.
Meghan Gore
I think that he uses the phrase so it goes so much in that he is saying that life never stops. No matter what happens you can't stop what is meant to be. I think it is also his way to deal with big things that happen to him in a more nonchalant way. You can tell he doesn't know how to deal with his war memories and other issues because of his drinking problem. Again, he just passes off the drunk dialing in an almost joking matter.
Away In A Manger speaks of a baby who does not cry. Although this baby is divine by nature, he is similar to Billy. Billy does not cry although he saw so much: his near-death on multiple occasions, the passing of his wife, and so much more. Vonnegut more than likely used the verse from Away In A Manger to not only figure similarities between Billy and the carol, but to figure similarities between Mary O'Hare's angry words and the carol. Mary says that the men at war are nothing but babies, and as was Jesus.
I believe that "So it goes." is repeated after every death in the novel to reinforce the idea of Tralfamadorian time. The foreign sense of time states that Earthlings often think of time as a strict progression of cause to effect... But actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey stuff. The phrase "So it goes." reinforces that death really is not the end, but just another happening.
The term “so it goes” is repeated throughout the novel. The phrase adds a sense of uncertainty. The phrase is used as if the narrator didn’t witness the scene and only heard about it as a rumor. It seems the narrator does not know the full events he is telling us about. Also I do not think that Mary O’ Hare’s burst of anger was justifiable. She judge Vonnegut when he came over to talk about war memories. She assumed that he would support war and make it sound “manly”. Mary is angered because the soldiers that were drafted into the war were young people and many of those people died. However, Vonnegut did not support the war but instead poked fun at it by comparing it to the Children's Crusade.
"So it goes" is repeated in the novel to either emphasize that he has been desensitized by traumatic events such as death, or possibly because the events he is writing about may not be "true". It reminds me of The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien. Harrison Starr's anti-glacier comment was funny to me. Glaciers cannot be stopped by people and I don't really think anyone wants to stop glaciers, in fact we are sad that global warming is "stopping" glaciers by melting them. A lot of people want to stop war because of its violence but we all know it's never going to happen. Either because we don't know what actually happens in war or because we're too power and money driven to care. That's why Vonnegut is writing this book, to inform us on how dark war actually is, and hopefully to persuade the readers to do something, anything to stop war. At the end of the chapter, Vonnegut compares himself to Lot from the Gideon Bible, because she looked back at a city after she was told not to and she turns into a pillar of salt. Vonnegut is looking back at a war even though its going to be traumatic for him to do so. He says Slaughterhouse-Five is a failure because he is also a pillar of salt. That obviously isn't true because this book is still being studied in schools today and is talked about quite a lot.
Something I found ironic was that he mentions a smell of "mustard gas and roses" a few times. Mustard gas is used to kill people and must smell very bad, but people love the smell of roses and they can symbolize love and life. Maybe it's foreshadowing?
Vonnegut outlining the story in crayon can be tied to Mary O'hare's concerns later in the chapter about babies fighting wars. Crayons are mainly used by children and the fact that Vonnegut's best outline for his war book was in crayon creates a sense that wars are best fought by children. For example, those enlisted in the armed forces during major wars were and are generally fresh out of high school or college with few obligations as far as husbands, wives, and children go. Young men and women are also more willing to fight for their country than middle aged men and women with solid jobs and families. I think Mary O'hare's concern for her children was valid and the crayon outline of Vonnegut's book brings attention to the role of "babies" in war.
Kurt using himself as a character was fairly shocking to me. And as I continued the novel, it threw me off. I was getting into the groove of Kurt's mind and then it felt like I started a different book.. minus the repetition of "so it goes," that never leaves...
I appreciate it, though, because it gives the reader a little glimpse into his mind. The chapter itself was really more like a preface than a chapter of the following story. That was the only thing that bugged me a little. It was a nice introduction, but did not have much to do with the book as a whole. Kurt is Kurt, Billy is Billy. But are they really the same person? Hmm. I honestly would have read the whole book like that, from Kurt's perspective (although that channels The Things They Carried a little from last year). Maybe it was put in because he needed more chapters - after all, he did repeat his struggles with writing the book. Or maybe including himself gives the reader another way to relate Billy to Kurt or the reality that Kurt witnessed such events.
Within the first few pages, I had already made some observations. The one thing that stood out to me was the repetition of the phrase "So it goes." I thought about what this could mean and my thought was that it was Vonnegut's way of showing that the war is the way it is, the expression through the words seemed bored and indifferent. Maybe Vonnegut himself is bored of war and the war stories and how they're all the same. I enjoy the tone that emanates from this book. The carefree and simple attitude will help me stay interested in the book. The last thing that stood out to me was the capitalization of "Was" in the sentence "This veteran decided to take his care into the basement, as he closed the door and started down, but his wedding ring Was caught in all the ornaments (6)." I'm still struggling to find the significance of the random capitalization. Why the emphasis on "was"? Does the wedding ring have significance itself?
I think it’s kind of funny that Vonnegut at one point outlined his war story in crayon on wallpaper. It reminds me of an innocent child drawing pictures on the walls. This is so ironic because as Mary is angrily talking to Vonnegut, she explains that the soldiers in the wars are nothing but children in over their heads in battle. Vonnegut promises Mary that he will not portray the soldiers as heroes, as other war books do, but as ordinary boys. Not only is the fact that Vonnegut outlined his story in crayon like a child when Mary called soldiers children ironic, but Vonnegut mapping out the lives of fellow soldiers and the exact moment of their deaths in such a nonchalant way is ironic in itself. He always has such a casual manner when he talks about the most gruesome war details.
The phrase that I often notice in this novel, "So it goes", gives me a feeling that the narrator is adjusted to what is happening throughout Slaughterhouse-Five, and doesn't view it as unusual or depressing, as some of us readers might. As for "Eheu, fugaces labuntur anni", it translates from Latin, meaning "Alas! Our fleeting years pass away." I believe that this phrase is used when the narrator realizes that events and years are meshing together and things are harder to remember accurately. For example, when the narrator can't distinctively remember which year he had last seen O'Hare, he uses the saying "Eheu, fugaces labuntur anni". I believe this frustrates the narrator, but he is settling and understanding.
It definitely strange that Vonnegut made himself a character in his own work, especially because this novel really isn't a biography. It definitely gave me a weird and unexplainable first expression, but at the same time it caught my attention. He also uses "So it goes" a lot throughout the novel. I believe that this phrase is a way for Vonnegut to show that all of these stories or instances that he has been told about may not be true at all, and he wants us to know that. The whole first chapter is made up of these stories, and the fact that they may not be true, make the chapter more interesting and seemed to spur my imagination.
The important thing about Vonnegut's first news story is the fact it was about a veteran that died, not in war, but by doing a new everyday job the veteran took after the war. I believe Vonnegut shared this story because it showed how there was still death even outside of war. That man survived war and ended up dying doing his new everyday job, and also in a way that was not heard of hardly ever. The tone Vonnegut took when relating to the story was nonchalant. The story didn't seem to bother him, even as a veteran himself because as he said in the novel when asked if the scene had bothered him, "I've seen lots worse than that in the war."
I think its really different that Vonnegut made himself a character in his own book. His most frequently used phrase is "So it goes". I think he uses this phrase to show that there is no way of changing how was is, that you just have to accept what ever happens. The entire first chapter of this novel is all war stories. When Vonnegut uses "So it goes", it just his way of showing there are so many stories and some of them may not be true.
I love the quote “And I asked myself about the present: how wide it was, how deep it was, and how much was mine to keep.” It makes me think about how much a moment really means. When living in the moment/present it can be impossible to tell how much impact it will have. Some moments fly by and skim the surface. Others stay with you. For instance, your wedding is a day that, while you’re living it, is meaningful and deep, and it’s a personal moment that is yours to keep. However, someone else’s wedding can have a lot of meaning, but it is more theirs to keep than yours.
Anthropologists study humans, past and present, both on a social and biological level. While he was a student in the Department of Anthropology they taught that everyone was the same and no differences exist between people. They also taught that no one was bad or gross or absurd. I find it ironic that his dad mentions a villain being put in one of his books while he was taught that nobody is bad. Entertainment (movies, books, etc.) thrives off the relationship of the good guy vs. the bad guy. I find it hard to understand that they study humans but teach no differences between them. Everyone has their own personality and background. I also find it ironic that he was taught this after he was in the war. During war they fight the enemy and the opposing sides kill each others soldiers and blow each other up, but then he's taught no one is bad. From a different perspective what they were teaching was right. All the people in the war fought for a cause and risked their lives for their countries so in that sense everybody is the same. Also biologically speaking everyone is pretty much the same. It all just really makes you think.
I think what Harrison Starr says about the glaciers is so truthful and powerful. Writing one anti-war book is not going to stop war, just like writing an anti-glacier book will not stop glaciers from existing and moving. Harrison is saying that war is such a huge part of our world today and one person telling people to stop fighting will not make a difference and has no control to physically stop any killing from taking place. I think this is so powerful because it’s true that one person does not have the authority to change something worldwide. Everyone must come together to make a change for the better. Writing about a problem will not stop it; only international action can solve problems and stop horrible things like war from taking place.
"Eheu, fugaces labuntur anni."
This latin phrase translates to "Alas! the fleeting years glide on." I found that from Merriam-Webster, but I think it is used to express how fast time can slip by. It sounds kind of ominous or melancholy to me, but I like it a lot.
Regarding the quote about the present, I think the present is incapable of ever being truly grasped. It shows itself, surprising us because we never know what it will bring, and then it flutters away to be lost in the void of our memories.
An anthropologist studies humanities. This could be art or architecture. Anything pertaining to Mankind.
The irony of Mr. Derby's death is that after surviving one of the most terrifying acts of war -the bombing of Dresden, Germany - he steals a teapot and gets executed for it. What a way to die. I'm enjoying this book the second time much more than the first time through.
The phrase "So it goes" is repeated throughout not only the first chapter, but the entire book. When used it devoids the previous text of any emotion, particularly grief, pain, and other emotions associated with death. "So it goes" creates a sort of comic relief after everything related with death, but at the same time is used to show what people thought of death during this time, that it wasn't a big deal as long as you didn't think too much about it. I also found the comment by Harrison Starr to be disturbingly true. I say this because a glacier is massive and unforgiving. It takes lives of those unsuspecting, and it moves so slow as to appear unmovable. War is like this is every way. It takes the lives of those who are still in their teens, and if a mistake is made, it can be deadly. However, like a glacier, war is still moving. Countries and their people are working towards peace even if it appears unreachable. But possibly, one day those after us will be able to see the movements made. Just like we can see the places where past glaciers have long disappeared, the places left for the world to behold just how far those glaciers moved.
"So he was hoisted into the air and the floor of the car went down, dropped out from under him, and the top of the car squished him. So it goes (9)." He makes it seem like something so small or like he isn't even sure if this even happened. For someone who was in the war like Vonnegut he saw gruesome things that where bigger than some of the things he tells us when he says "so it goes". Maybe he's suffering from a disorder where he makes up things and that's his way of telling us if he doesn't know if it's the truth or not.
I think that it was very different and unique that Vonnegut put himself in his own book. Throughout the first chapter it mainly talks about Vonnegut trying to write an anti-war story and talking about other stories back from the war. Vonnegut also uses the phrase “so it goes” a lot throughout the first chapter. I think he uses this phrase so much so he can brush off all the stuff that happened in the war like it was nothing so he doesn’t have to think about the bad for so long. I also think he uses it because it shows that whatever happened in the war happened and there is no way of changing it.
I think Mary is an alright character when I first read about how her demeanor was I couldn’t figure out a reason why but now it’s very explanatory. Mary is angry because she looks at Vonnegut and O’Hare as just children that don’t need to be talking about war. She is a mother that loves her children and she states that she will not have her own children going into the war. She doesn’t like the war and thinks it is a bad thing. Mary hates the fact that Vonnegut and O’Hare had to be a part of the war itself. Yes I believe that her outburst was understandable because she doesn’t want any more people to be shipped off the war because they are just mere children no matter how old they are.
I find the phrase "So it goes" to be rather haunting. Although he speaks of time as nonlinear, the phrase "So it goes" makes the event become a permanent and unchangeable part of time; it makes me believe that "So it goes", and "unstuck from time" are phrases that contradict one another. While the former is permanent and the latter is open ended. "So it goes" also reminds me of how scriptures in the Bible will sometimes end with "The word of God". As both statements put emphasis on the proceeding paragraphs by making them sound like an inevitable fate or law.
The way the first chapter was written threw me off a little bit. It was a weird shift to the rest of the chapters. I feel as though he put himself in as a character to help better give the reader a little background making it seem as though he recalls it as such a distant memory. I'm still not quite sure about the chapter.
I love how Vonnegut ends certain sentences with "So it goes.." He makes things that would seem dramatic and important feel as if they are insignificant. I think it gives the novel a nice touch. He is basically saying that life goes on no matter what. If you think something is a huge deal, it doesn't mean that life is going to stop with it, it just goes on.
"So it goes.." sounds very apathetic, or at least not emotional. Vonnegut is acknowledging the death, but doesn't acknowledge the depth of it. Death happens everywhere in the war, and outside of it; you can't get emotional and weepy because someone died.
I think Mary was a relatable character. Many people are opposed to war-no matter what generation it occurs in. Sometimes it seems like novels and movies glorify the war without showing how young the boys are when they join. Mary, as a mother and wife, must feel especially protective and angry because her husband was in the war (at such a young age) and she has her own children. She's concerned for their future. I think her outburst was justifiable because Vonnegut was right there, discussing his novel. How often do you have the chance to voice your opinion directly to the source?
I find it very interesting that Vonnegut wrote himself into chapter one. Not many authors choose to ingrain their life stories in their actual books. This first chapter is so different from the others and has really no relation to any of the other chapters. It is completely from Vonnegut’s point of view, describing parts of his life. I think Vonnegut made this chapter part of the book instead of an introduction to show how deeply entrenched this story is in his own life. He is telling a war story so important to him and writing about his life in chapter one shows how much this war story and just the war in general is a part of him. What happened to him he cannot forget and it will stay with him forever.
The phrase "So it goes" is repeated throughout the entire novel. Vonnegut uses this phrase to help Billy deal with his past traumas like dealing with death, and thinking about death as he travels through time. He learned it during the time he spent on Tralfamadore. I personally find the phrase a bit annoying because I read "So it goes" after every single death. There is an ample amount of death during war. I believe that Mary is a very relatable character. Something was bothering her and she didn't try and hide it. Her outburst was completely understandable. She was upset Vonnegut and O'Hare were talking about the war and trying to reminisce on ole memories, because they were merely kids at the time. She hated the idea of war and everything along with it.
"So it goes," used many times throughout the book so far. I find it very interesting and strange that he describes such gruesome and brutal scenes, such as his wife dying of carbon-monoxide poisoning. What I think Kurt Vonnegut means when he uses this is that no matter what you do tragedy will always occur in some form or another so why should we grieve for long periods of time. I think his view is to mourn when the time is right, and then get over it because you can' change it. The tralfamadores know when the world ends but do nothing to stop it, So it goes.
Before I started reading this book I heard it was an antiwar book. So I expected sad stories and the impact war had on others. That isn't what I got at all. He tells gruesome war stories and then says, "So it goes." This book has not made me think war should be stopped, but rather that it is unavoidable and we just try to justify ourselves and deal with it. Another thing that bothers me about this book is how quickly it changes setting and plot, A few paragraphs about something and then it switches. I want delve deeper into these stories, but being cut off so abruptly I don't get the chance.
I find it interesting that Vonnegut made himself a character in his own book, even it was only in the first chapter. I actually found Chapter 1 to be more of a preface than anything. Vonnegut wants you to get to know him and how the book came to be before he introduces you to the characters. I for one don’t really read the preface of books so making into a chapter kind of forced me to read, which I thought was a clever thing. He also tells the story like his character is telling it, which reminds you that he was actually there and this isn’t a made up story with fake characters and a fake plot.
I find it interesting that Vonnegut made himself a character in his own book, even it was only in the first chapter. I actually found Chapter 1 to be more of a preface than anything. Vonnegut wants you to get to know him and how the book came to be before he introduces you to the characters. I for one don’t really read the preface of books so making into a chapter kind of forced me to read, which I thought was a clever thing. He also tells the story like his character is telling it, which reminds you that he was actually there and this isn’t a made up story with fake characters and a fake plot.
"So it goes," the only constant you will find in the first chapter. It was strange that Vonnegut had placed himself in the chapter as a character. But only for this chapter. Though, I think it was important that he did that. He wanted to explain a few things about his novel, and how it came to be. It was a story of it's own, but it has a mutualism relationship with the story that fills the rest of the novel. Each one needing each other. Back to the constant though. The phrase, "So it goes," is used every time someone does. I think he uses this to show that life goes on. That this is a normal part of life, and you need to continue with your life. Though, it find this phrase cold, and slightly harsh, that he has no other feelings towards the deaths of people he knew.
Kurt Vonnegut is a very complexed man. The way he uses the different perspectives, in the beginning of the novel, shows that there’s two different parts to his story. One of them being the soldier and what memories he recalls from war, and the other is him being a normal man with a list of jobs and a family. As confusing as this is, it brings a good base to the novel by connecting his present life and his past. Personally this is one of my favorite chapters because it talks about Vonnegut’s life and shows you his perspective on war.
Already in chapter one, this is one of the strangest books I've read. There must be a lot going on in Kurt Vonnegut's head at any moment. Anyway, I love the lesson he learns in college. It has always been my experience that everyone bad always has some sort of redeeming quality. No one is so super ultra monstrous as to never elicit sympathy. That seems like a lesson he'll be trying to teach throughout the book. Like when that professor was talking to him about the concentration camps. The professor talked all about the atrocities the Germans committed during the war, while seeing none that the Americans had done, like the ones Vonnegut saw. That's what he's talking about when he says "I know, I know, I know." We've all heard of what the enemy has done. But perhaps it's more important to hear what kinds of awful things we have done.
I think the "so it goes" line is very catchy. Its repeated multiple times in the story and has now become my favorite line in the book. I think its written in there when the author says something that he's not quite sure about. Like, this is all that he was told/knows and he's not letting assumptions get in the way.
The phrase "So it goes." seems to be used to make things seem more casual in my opinion. He will tell an about an awful situation/event that occurred and repeat the line "So it goes." as if it had no effect at all. Mary was cold upon his arrival and at first I was confused but once she explained I think it was justifiable. Living with her husband and hearing his stories about what he went through it makes sense for her to be terrified of her children going through the same.
In all honesty, so far I think this novel is terrible. I'm not too fond of the way it's written and it's too dry and slow of a beginning of a start of my liking. Now onto the novel itself. I think it's bazaar that he wants so badly to write an anti-war book when he was in war. It sees so hypocritical to me. And writing a book on something that you don't remember much of? Odd.
I feel bad for him, drinking himself silly trying to remember, but also trying to forget. it just shows the affects of the war on him. The way he drunk calls, trying to find someone who would understand, and connect with him.
I'm hoping that I'll enjoy the novel further more as I read, but so far I'm doubtful.
"So it goes."
This three-letter statement is - as mentioned before - a constant, a desensitizer, and a phrase related to death (in the way Vonnegut uses it). I find the it to be a default, transitional phrase. It brings a certain fluidity to the novel and keeps readers in check: of the horrible moments that cannot be described and of the way life turns out. Vonnegut also uses the phrase "And so on." It implies the same thing, but as the book unwraps, Vonnegut chooses his favorite. "So it goes," gives an emphasis on whichever topic Vonnegut reveals to us. It offers space for us to think beyond with our own interpretation.
On the topic of repetition, Vonnegut also repeats "I know" three times on the tenth page of the book. This shows a bit of attitude (similar to how a teen would respond to a overbearing parent). I believe Vonnegut repeats it to somehow erase the thoughts. He pushes those dreadful images of what he knows away, like a teen would push a parent away. Vonnegut sure does like to reuse his words.
In Chapter one of the novel, Vonnegut starts to use a reoccurring phrase: “So it goes.” I believe he adds this into his anti-war book to express a small portion of comic relief in between his stories. With the phrase added in, it removes the monotony of rambling on about things from the past. In regards to Harrison Starr and the glacier to war comparison, I totally agree. The two things are similar in that they are large masses and aren’t easily stopped. On another note, anthropology is the study of humans and their behavior from both the past and present. This is really interesting in that this idea ties into how wars start, from different mindsets of human beings. The other thing that I found interesting was the phrase: “Eheu, fugaces labuntur anni”, which means: “alas! The fleeting years glide on.” I believe that Voneggut used this phrase in order to explain how he felt in the years of the war, and it just seemed like left kept going, no matter the circumstance.
The significance in the fact that the narrator outlined the story in crayon is that it shows that he is not extremely serious about his writing. The narrator also makes himself a character in the first chapter, which is interesting in itself. He seems like a very sarcastic man and he talks about how the story outlined in crayon was his best one yet. It's strange because we imagine all authors to be the same: bent over their desk, scribbling furiously, spectacles pushed up to the bridge of their nose, planning every detail carefully. This shows that our author isn't just like all of those other ones because he uses whatever is on hand to outline the story that comes to mind. In this case, it just so happened to be a crayon on the back of some wallpaper. It intrigued me that our author is unconventional and made me want to read even more.
Anthropologists are scientists who study the behaviors and social relationships of humans. What they do and, more importantly, why they do what they do. "Another thing they taught was that nobody was ridiculous or bad or disgusting," (8). Everyone does something for a reason, there are no people born hateful or mean. They may grow to be these ways eventually, but the point that he's trying to make is that all the people in his story have reasons for being who they are. They may not be good, justifiable reasons; we may not understand their reasons at all, but they're there. During the war, he came to know the people he was with, why they were who they were, and who they had originally wanted to be. That's why it's important that he went to school for anthropology. He learned that people aren't who they seem and that there is always a background story. He's also preparing us to have an open mind when it comes to his characters, not to judge them to quickly for the things that they will do, to remember that no one is born the way that they are now.
In the beginning of the story I find it quite sad but true what Harrison Star remarks on the regards of making an anti-war novel. In my eyes I see this as a pessimistic view that just because you could never stop a glacier means you could never stop a war. Pg.7 I can see that the narrator at this point has a dark humor to himself but is slightly sad and I feel for this man. The narrator states how late at night you talks with his dog sandy and how the dog does not mind the smell of muster gas and roses. Which in the begging I recall him comparing his breath after drinking alcohol to muster gas and roses. Last comment for this chapter is from Pg.9. I'm sure I speak for other readers when I say how disturbing I find the whole reporting on the death with the newspaper ordeal. When he called it in and the lady wanted him to call the wife and give he the news all just for the story. At first I thought how insensitive of her but then felt bad for how she is desensitized to things like this.
I thought this chapter was an interesting way to introduce the novel itself. The author making himself a character saying he is going to write the book. I found the use of the phrase "so it goes" to be interesting as well. it is used after any description or mention of something dying, some of them being very gruesome. It makes it seem like he is saying life moves on and he doesn't dwell on it very much.
In the novel I think that Vonnegut uses the phrase "so it goes" after every death story in the war because death happens to all of us. We all face it at one point. In the beginning he tells his old war friend he is writing an anti-war novel and his friend O'Hare replies he might as well be writing an anti-glacier novel. Basically saying that glaciers will happen and war will happen there's no stopping it, same as death, it is inevitable, so it goes. Moreover, after reading the phrase I got a sense of a little bit of chillness from the author. Almost like the deaths and seriousness of the war wasn't so gruesome.
The anti-glacier comment by Harrison Starr, in my opinion, is a comparison to the war and the deaths in the war. I took is as you cant control glaciers, they wont stop, no matter what anyone does they just happen and there is no telling when it will happen it just does. Same with war and death. The wars just happen and they will continue to happen and same as glaciers it takes a strong force to control them but they will never completely stop. Same goes for death it is inevitable. You never know when or how just that at some point it will come. That was how I took the "anti-glacier" reference.
I find the limerick and the song to be very important, mainly because they both tell the tale of a someone who is stuck in a loop. A loop that will never end until someone else cuts it and frees that someone who is stuck. I think this is related to the novel because the men who were sent off during the war were all taught the same thing - fight communism, kill the enemy, protect your country - even if they did not believe in that. They had to follow orders or suffer the consequences and it was hard to stray from something the government had ordered, such as the draft. I also agree with Sam Greeley on how writing this novel about Dresden has set an obsession for the author.
What he learned in college is important for him because it taught him that the world isn't as easy as “hero” and “villain” like in a comic book or some cowboy movie. He was taught that everyone is exactly the same. Everyone has the same origins whether it be evolution or God, and everyone has the same needs and desires. The world is full of gray areas and thinking of everything as an ultimatum is insane. For example not all Germans of the time were Nazis. Being German did not automatically make you anti semitic, and hating Jewish people is not limited to Germans. There isn't a clear villain in the novel because everyone comes with their own story and their own reasons for doing certain things.
Honestly, when Vonnegut made himself a character in chapter one, it really threw me off. From that point, I was expecting the book to be more like The Things They Carried or more of a collection of stories from the war. As I have finished chapter five so far and only encountered Billy Pilgrim's story I realized that the story is in fact not about Vonnegut at all (also reading the back cover again helped me identify the protagonist). I do believe there to be a reason for Vonnegut to directly force himself into chapter one; to me, it gives the story more credibility. Instead of giving us a nameless narrator to question and blame, he is saying, "These are my words and I will confidently put my name on them." Also, if his involvement in chapter one was nixed, we wouldn't have any background to know why the bombing of Dresden is such an important topic for Vonnegut to explain. On page one, Vonnegut throws in a comment that Dresden looks a lot like Dayton, but it has more open spaces which must be due to the immense amount of bone meal in the ground. The casualness that this comment is made is almost condescending in the way that he offers no more explanation. It reminds me a lot of the habits of high school students who want to boast about something that they have a lot of knowledge about, one might say something like, "Oh yeah I spent my summer working with the NWRA" and they wont tell you the meaning of the letters just so you can ask and they can pour their sweet and scarce knowledge all over your ignorant mind. In relation to Slaughter House Five, I think this off-hand use of details like this makes us want to read more and find out how he can say things so easily. It is much like the way he uses the phrase, "So it goes," he uses it instead of explaining something. He acts as though he expects us to know how the way war works and shouldn't have to explain himself. could be completely wrong, but that is just the way that the words are being read in my mind.
When I read the phrase “so it goes” it seems to add mystery to the novel. As it is said after every person’s death, it makes it seem as though the whole truth isn’t being told, or there is another side of the story. It also makes the peoples deaths seem like they are no big deal. When Mary O’Hare was cold and angry at Vonnegut’s arrival I was at first confused as to why she acted like she did. Once the fact was bought into play that they were all so young when they were in the war, her outburst was justifiable. Although I am not a mother, I can imagine how heartbreaking it would be to watch your baby go off to war not knowing if you will ever see them again. As I read the first chapter, this novel reminded me a lot of the book “The Things They Carried” by Tim O’Brien.
Whenever the I read the phase "so it goes" in this book I have noticed that it is Vonnegut's way of externally expressing his disconnection to the deaths that the phase follows. It almost as if he is saying "this person died a gruesome death...okay moving on" like he is creating an emotional barrier to the deaths in his own writing because he does not want to deal with the reality of it all. When Harrison Starr made the comment about Vonnegut's book being as effective as trying to control a glacier I thought it was a perfect comparison because no matter how many people read about the horrors or senselessness of war, the truth is that it will still continue no matter how hard you try. There will always be another situation leading to violence. Knowledge can help, but it will never completely end it all.
I slightly disagree with Starr's glacier comment. While yes, merely writing an anti-war novel will not stop wars and their destruction, but it contributes to the cause. The more people that speak up about war's cruelty, injustices, and pointlessness, the bigger the anti-war movement becomes. If no one speaks out against it, then there will never be change. The mistake in Starr's logic is that he is viewing war as an inanimate object, something that is not swayed by human emotions or actions. But on the contrary, war is a sentient being, its whole existence driven by human actions. The less people who contribute to war, and the more who speak out against it, the harder it is for the tragedies that war brings to occur.
An anthropologist is someone who studies humans and society. I think it's interesting that Vonnegut studied anthropology in college. I also think that it had everything to do with the war and his bombing experience. It was quite possible he was looking for answers. Answers as to why people could commit such an atrocity as bombing innocent people. By studying anthropology, maybe he could unlock these answers, find understanding and insight, and possibly find closure for what happened to him. He could have also believed that studying humans would give him a way to prevent these things from happening ever again.
I think the anti-glacier comment by Harrison Star is pretty truthful. Trying to stop war is like trying to stop glaciers-futile. There have been wars for hundreds of years, and there will always be wars. To change the war is to completely change humanity, and that's not a task that can be solved by books and movies. Even if there was some progress made by the media, it'd only be useful during that generation. Reading books or watching movies about past wars doesn't help end others, it just adds opposition to that particular war. Each war is fought for different reasons and trying to stop them by writing a novel or a movie script, that is basically the same as ones in years past, won't solve anything.
This book is unlike any other that I have read before. Making this summer reading experience seem new while reading it. The first chapter had me confused with where the plot was going, or who "I" was. Vonnegut also talks about a "Yon Yonson" who is no longer talked about after chapter one. Vonnegut also talks about a place called "Dresden", and it being a memory from his book. The constant jumping of perspectives and different points in time will keep me getting confused. But that's just the fun of reading something new.
The phrase “so it goes” is used quite too often. I am not a hundred percent as to what the true meaning is, but I do have some assumptions. The three little words make such a great impact on the middle/end of a paragraph. The phrase emphasizes the fact that death is a part of everyday life and that the world keeps on moving. It holds its own significance. It’s as though death doesn't faze him anymore. People die but the world moves on like nothing’s changed. I feel sorry for Billy in a way. Billy is so detached from his life that not even death registers as important to him. Things happen but “so it goes on”.
I personally like how Vonnegut uses the phrase "So it goes..." at the end of paragraphs/sections. It leaves a bit of uncertainty after each significant event that has happened to a character in the novel. Almost as if the truth is stretched from these many tales of former lives of the characters encountered in the novel. Not knowing if something Vonnegut says is entirely true or not keeps me intrigued to keep reading on. Also Mr. Earl I agree with you on how he admits to drunk dialing former people from his life. A very entertaining thing to read.
As I read the first chapter the one thing that captured my attention most was the way Vonnegut described death. It is obvious to me that in the case of death, he is quite the optimist. When he just said, "So it goes" it made me stop and think to myself. As hard as it is to cope with the tragedy of death one must bring themselves to the understanding that it was going to happen no matter what. Everything is going to go on and life just continues. It's almost sad though, the fact that Billy showed no sign of sadness and instantly went to just thinking So it goes. He must have dealt with a lot of death before.
The Narrator writing on pieces of wallpaper with a crayon makes me feel less like he's writing for constructive writing purposes and more as a release/ something to pass the time. Another thing I'd like to mention is how he brushes off death like dust on his shoulders. These are signs of someone who has truly been to hell and back. Which also goes hand and hand with the mantra "So it goes" that is repeated, it drives the "nothing bother's me" vibe home.
In reply to Vonnegut's answer to writing anti-war books, Harrison Starr made an inquiry. "Why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead?" Vonnegut thought about this, and realized the simple message Starr was trying to convey. You can't stop wars, just like you cannot stop a glacier. No matter what you do, where you go, there will always be war. No matter how big or small, it'll still be there. And even if wars did stop, life would keep going and death is inevitable. In Starr's perspective, I'm sure he thought that there is really no point into writing an anti-war book, since it wouldn't change the world, nor have any affect on the people reading it.
When I first started reading the book I was very confused, I had to read a couple pages a few times to fully understand. He moves from past to present and so forth which becomes hard to follow. Throught the chapter he writes "So it goes." over and over and over again. I believe he writes this as if to say that he doesn't neccisarilly believe the details that he shares with the reader. Some of the information may have come from another source or may even be something he heard through the grapegine. Maybe as to say that everything you hear isn't true. I like that the author shares a vulnerable moment with his readers when he discusses the honesty of being drunk at night and calling up old friends or girlfriends. I think he shares this with the readers to let us know that he is only human and has made mistakes as well. His sensitivity to death is some what off putting considering there is none. He plays it off as if it's an everyday thing and wasn't any big deal. Although he may feel this way I can't relate to that and it's hard to see where he is coming from. Overall I feel like the novel could be interesting to someone, but that someone isn't me.
"So it goes" is a widely used phrase in the Slaughterhouse Five novel. I believe that Vonnegut repeated that phrase, as well as "and so on" to allow the reader to get a sense from the narrator that in a warlike atmosphere, there is no time to become attached but a time to act nonchalant. I believe so because the phrases are put at the ends of paragraphs that just explained a death or a kidnapping or another unfortunate event. "And he told me about the concentration camps, and about how the Germans made soap and candles out of the fat of dead Jews and so on." (pg 10). What I also noticed from the phrases being repeated after deaths and so on (no pun intended) is that it ties in to the Tralfamadorians' theory stating "when a person dies he only appears to die." (pg 26). I think that the two correlate to bring another ironic factor to the novel.
Quite honestly, before I read this book and did some research, I knew nothing about Dresden at all. I’m not entirely sure what classifies a bombing “worse” than another; the fact that so many lives were lost in such a vile way, in my opinion, make them both some of the worst events in history. If it’s casualties we’re looking at, yes, Dresden was worse than Hiroshima in a count of approximately 120,000 Japanese versus 135,000 Germans (give or take). The size of the firestorms was considerably different, though. Hiroshima’s bomb radius covered about 0.8 miles, about half of the firestorm area. Dresden was attacked by the British and Americans where over 650,000 incendiary (fire-causing) bombs engulfed the city in over a thirteen mile radius. This is approximately fourteen times greater than the distance of the bomb “Little Boy”’s radius on Hiroshima. Also looking at the military strategy perspective, the atomic bomb was dropped in an attempt to spare 400,000 American prisoners of war in Japanese hands, all who would have been executed had the Americans just invaded the island. An article quotes “The U.S. Pacific command estimated that at least 500,000 Americans and three times as many Japanese would have died in an invasion. Thus, the atom bombs may have saved 2 million lives, mostly Japanese.” It was also stated in the same article that Dresden was attacked in attempts to defeat a factory with workers towards the German war effort. However, Dresden was not a military target. The bombing did little to nothing for the war effort since Germany was already in the midst of defeat and the event happened only 10 weeks before their surrender. Thus, proves that the bombing of Dresden was essentially worse. Although neither were any feat to brag about.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/death-toll-debate-how-many-died-in-the-bombing-of-dresden-a-581992.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/30/local/me-12456
In Chapter one of Slaughterhouse-Five it was basically giving the reader background information of Vonnegut as a prisoner in WW2. I found it weird that Vonnegut used the phrase "So it goes" after the taxi driver died. He also used the words "and so on" which I feel gives the novel a more warlike appeal. These phrases could possibly be used to show that you can't become attached to anything or anyone in a war related situation. I feel as though these phrases are put into the novel after a death to show the acceptance of what happens during war. I can relate this chapter to my life because I've gone through 3 deaths within this past year. There's nothing you can do about it though, you just have to learn to accept it and that life still goes on no matter hard it hurts.
During the conversation between Harrison Starr and Billy I found it ironic how Harrison asks Billy why he doesn’t make an anti-glacier book instead of an anti-war book. Harrison’s comparison of war and a glacier describes perfectly how war is, adding a bit of a satirical touch. Billy explains that wars are as easy to stop as glaciers, and that is not very easy at all. In reality like Billy explains there will always be war just like there are glaciers. Also this reminds me of how common the conversation of war is just like glaciers (global warming). I think about how much global warming is brought up some times more than it should be compared to more major problems and when Harrison compares a glacier to war it also is seen as a bit of an extreme and satirical comparison.
In the beginning Mary made me excited to read the book. She created an overall more realistic portrayal of what Billy would write in the future. Mary created a true eye opener to what war was really like without giving all the details. She explains that war is seen as something that is glorified too much. It creates ‘war- loving’ men and women, as well as more wars that will be fought by innocent people just like Billy is. I completely agree with Mary. In the movies a big strong man plays the character as a soldier and saves himself along with many others. One country wins, and then they are all happy. In reality soldiers are frightened as Mary explains. She says that war is glorified so much making it okay for more wars to be fought which is also true. In war there is not always a winner and a loser. There is a loser and then a bigger loser. Many lose something during a war, physically and mentally, but since war is seen more of as a battle type game it makes it okay. Mary’s thoughts give a little bit of a more opposite but true portrayal of what war is like, who it is fought by, and why it shouldn’t be portrayed the way may try to portray it.
Personally, I enjoyed Mary's character completely. To me, all of her action was justifiable. She makes great points on the war as well as them men who had participated in it. "And war will look just wonderful, so we'll have a lot more of them. And they'll be fought babies like the babies upstairs." This quote was spoken by Mary herself when she was attacking Billy about the war. I use the word attacking because it seems as if Mary blames Billy for the war that just ended as well as any future war that will be had all because of his to-be-written book. Mary has a point though. Men sometimes tend to glorify their war stories and she doesn't want this to be the case. Mary is a wonderful character who I believe not necessarily satirizes, but represents the ideas and ideals of anti-war supporters. Due to this reason, I believe Vonnegut chose to dedicate this book to Mary as well because all in all, Vonnegut believes Mary had it right all along.
I think the repeated phrase “So it goes” is the way he thinks about everything since he’s been back from the war. After the destruction of Dresden, everything seems to just “go” to him. He just lets life happen, and he thinks whatever happens is the way life is “supposed to go”. I know one difference between O’Hare and the narrator was that one is short and one is tall. That probably doesn’t mean anything, but that stuck out to me. Also, O’Hare doesn’t really seem interested in bringing back memories from the war. I think he just wants to forget about it, while on the other hand, the narrator spends most of his time trying to remember more things about the war and Dresden, because that’s what his life is. He is a writer, and he’s writing a book about Dresden. I think that the outlining in crayon was supposed to make the point of how many people and how many incidents were involved in the destruction of Dresden, and how all of that, everything, was gone just like that. An anthropologist studies the behaviors and social interactions of humans. He learned that nobody is bad, disgusting, or evil in college. I think that is very important because of what his dad said to him about his book. That shows that the narrator doesn’t blame anyone for the war and the destruction he’s seen in his life, because he was taught in college that nobody is bad or evil.
After chapter one I have come to realize that Kurt Vonnegut must have a very random, yet detail-oriented way of thinking. A few things that stuck out to me were Vonnegut's expressions upon time and a lifespan. When questioning the meaning of Vonnegut's statement, "Eheu, fugaces lab untie anni", I found out that the Latin term means, "alas, the fleeting years slip away". The popular phrase in my eyes signifies that each year seems to fly past us. This phrase also stuck with me for a while seeing that just yesterday it seemed like I left elementary school and now I'm entering my senior year of high school. Vonnegut also reiterates this same, yet different analogy when stating that the second hand on his watch would twitch, and a year would pass by. I feel the exact same way about Vonnegut's statement when everyday flies by with the blink of an eye. Finally, although speaking again upon the same subject, I loved the thought about the present that Vonnegut adds. He states," And I asked myself about the present: how wide it was, how deep it was, how much was mine to keep." When first reading this I immediately underlined it in my book. Not only do I think this thought is very eye-opening, it resembles our football motto from last season. We focused on the though that each day is all we have and all we can handle. This thought is also expressed through the children's book called the Precious Present. The present can be a very large gift or a simple waste of time depending on your basic day to day actions.
I think Vonnegut mskes himself a character in the story to help introduce how the novel will be told, and to introduce the story of Billy Pilgram. This made chapter one fell more like an introduction to the novel rather than the first chapter. "So it goes" seems to be used as a replacement for gory details of a violent act. "So it goes" seems like acceptance to the events that took place in Dresden.
At first “so it goes”, sounded to me like a phrase someone would say while they are telling a story that has been passed down from generation to generation. It seemed to be just a few casual words to help with the flow of the tale. As I read on, I picked up on the fact that it always accompanied the mention of death. I was a little bit bothered by it when I realized that. Some of my thoughts included, “that’s it? That’s all they get, just three small, extremely vague words to represent their life and death? Everyone is worth more than this passing statement.” I think it almost reached the point of disrespectfulness in my mind especially when he used it on his own father. For the remainder of chapter one there was not much I liked about “so it goes” except for the fact that it was easy to find when I needed to refresh my memory for these blog posts. However, the phrase does a nice job of setting up the tone of indifference for the novel. The book has very muted emotions if any at all. With that being said I like the book anyways because I think it is a good way to example of the desensitization that war can do to a person and I also think it sort of showcases the author’s disposition.
I feel like the phrase, "so it goes" frequently repeated throughout novel and was mentioned many times following chapter one. I agree that Vonnegut uses this phrase every time a death is mentioned. In addition, I believe that Vonnegut uses this expression simply due to the fact that he does not want to describe the events of the deaths occurring throughout the novel. Rather than elaborate on the deaths occurring, Vonnegut just uses the phrase, "so it goes" and then goes back to simply talk about other things.
i like how casual Vonnegut is about death. the phrase so it goes just fires home that point, as tho after war one no longer has the ability to feel pain over someones death. that it ruins you from feeling. i think that is a big point that he is trying to prove, that nothing really matters anymore. he elaborates on that in the first chapter and makes it sound like he has no purpose in life. his main character also exemplifies that about war, that it ruins you. the main character is generically happy, i mean hes rich has kids, and a wife, is powerful in his community but it doesn't seem to matter.
When Billy's father dies in a hunting accident and Billy's wife dies of carbon monoxide, but Billy survives a plane crash it show people around Billy have bad luck compared to him. Although, it shows that death can approach anyone no matter the circumstance. It also foreshadows Billy is in for a tough life with many obstacles. If I was listening to talk radio and some man came on talking about being abducted by aliens I would write him off as crazy. It sounds like Billy would be giving the plot of a science fiction movie. So, if he believed it happened to him I would think he came from an insane asylum.
The entire first chapter does not seem like your typical first chapter you'd see in your average novel. Quite frankly, I found the beginning of the novel very hard to follow. The way Vonnegut jumps around throughout chapter one really made me finding myself getting off track and confused. However, the way Mary stood up for herself on the subject of war and violence really made me have respect for her. She had very avid reasoning as to why she was against it, and I admire her passion on such an issue which I applaud her for.
I like the way the first chapter was written, with how honest Vonnegut was. He wrote about how he didn’t even like the way the novel turned out. I found it sad yet humorous how he wrote about his drunk calls in the middle of the night, and how his breath smelled like “mustard gas and roses”. On another topic, I thought that Mary was Justifiable in the way she acted. She thought that Kurt’s book would be about the glory of war, and not about the cruel reality. Most movies about war during the time period showed that war was great. The movies would show a famous actor portraying a great hero saving the day. It wasn’t until movies like Apocalypse Now that showed the horrors of war. Mary didn’t want war to be portrayed in a happy way she wanted it to be shown in its real light.
The phrase in the novel “So it goes” started to get on my nerves not necessarily because it was repetitive, but because I wanted to know if that was what actually happened or not. I think the phrase is used to show that, that was how he heard the story, but since he may not have experienced it firsthand so it goes might be the best way to get his point across. I think by using the phrase it makes the reader connect more to the story because it is written in a way that relates to how people talk in real life as opposed to having some fantastic writing that the common person won’t relate to. I think the limerick and the song are to show that even though the lives of those two men may not have been exciting or have anything exceptional about them it still might be interesting to hear their stories even though they could be repetitive like the writer saying he didn’t have much to say, but many people were interested in what he had to say. I thought that Harrison Starrs comment was a different way to look at things, but it sort of put things in perspective, there will never not be war and writing against war could be seen as a waste of time just like trying to stop a glacier from moving.
I think Mary O’Hare is a great character. She seems to really have the Mama Bear mentality. She also doesn’t seem to be afraid to speak her mind or offend you no matter who you are or what you do. Mary seems to have a strong opinion about war taking away the “babies”. I think that her outburst was justifiable because she lived through sending those kids to war and was able to see the adverse effects on them. It is hard to imagine having to send people my age to another country to fight someone else’s war and have them lose the rest of their teenage years and have to grow up so quickly.
I think it was a great idea for Vonnegut to make himself a character in his own book and to create a sort of opening chapter that really helps you craft him into the person you would imagine him to be. Once i finished the first chapter and moved into the second one, i was thankful for the brief introduction to the anti-war book. I think the phrase "So it goes" is a a great way to show that death is a common thing for soldiers and the number of deaths is similar to the number of clouds in the sky, uncountable and to quick to dwell upon. The anti glacier comment by Harrison Starr was awesome to me because it really does show that there's really no way to stop a war just like there's no way to stop glaciers from moving, very creative comment by Starr. I also love that the narrator calls old friends and past crushes late at night just to talk, it's great because nobody would do that in today's world but it would be so great to keep communication between classmates and peers. When the narrator talked about writing his novel about Dresden on a roll of wallpaper, i immediately saw the irony because a roll of wallpaper always seems endless and i would imagine that to a solider was must be endless too. As a conclusion to chapter one, i was really having trouble getting used to Vonnegut's writing style. Skipping back and forth all the time really confuses me but i came to appreciate it as the novel progressed. The quotes and short stories in this novel are very thought provoking and really make you question humanity.
I think the phrase "so it goes" comes up so often in the novel already to demonstrate the fact Billy is desensitized and passive to things like death and massacre, not something to take lightly, but something that happens to people who experience what he has. I like how he mentioned Mary and how this novel was also for her, to show the horror of war, not the glamorized heroic versions movies at the time made it out to be.
Both the Limerick and the Song I find to be very interesting. The Song "My name is Yon Yonson..." symbolizes a never-ending cycle, just like the song is never ending. He refers to it in times when speaking about hurt, and war, and suffering, which leads us to believe that these things are never-ending. The limerick, however, I feel symbolizes how Dresdon and his attempt at writing about Dresdon has ruined and aged him, as well as a everyone's personal struggles and their tendency to blame other people. Both have proven to be important works to Vonnegut in the first chapter, I am interested to see how they tie into the rest of the story.
I believe the alternative ending for the novel was appropriate because it corresponded to Mary O'Hare's link between children and the war & how Vonnegut's intention to publish a story describing events of the war in a way promotes the subject to the future generations of the America and how Hollywood over glorifies it. I think that Vonnegut dedicated the novel to two of its fictional characters in order to shed a more positive light. Since the novel is filled with cruelty and gruesome moments, dedicating the novel and its contents to two of the characters that each had a great significance in the story provided a more positive atmosphere.
I thought that it was odd for Vonnegut to have the first chapter be about how he wrote the book and use himself as a character, but it also seemed like his own version of a foreword. He was a person that believed that war is just a natural thing (like the anti-glacier comment by Harrison Starr). I love his use of the phrase “So it goes.” It means that life happens, and you can’t dwell on something, but instead you need to get over it and move on. The song (pg. 3) sets the tone of how he thinks that life is just a cycle of birth, growing up, adulthood and death and it’s a pattern that will be repeated as long as humans aren’t extinct. When he calls his old friends late at night while he was drunk says a lot about his character and that he wasn’t always thinking clearly. The story of Edgar Derby shows the mentality of soldiers; that everything can be destroyed and thousands of people can be killed, but if one American takes a teapot, he will be shot to death by a firing squad.
"Eheu, fugaces labuntur anni. My name is Yon Yonson. There was a young man from Stamboul." (p.11) I find my own in depth analysis of this quote to be quite interesting. In Latin, the phrase "Eheu, fugaces labuntur anni," means "Alas, the fleeting years slip by." I find this to be interesting when paired with the other two phrases which I have decided symbolize a never ending cycle and blaming your problems on others, respectively. If that is the case then the top quote means that as the year go by, he is stuck in a never-ending cycle, and is blaming others. I feel like Vonnegut was struggling with the after math of the war that simply stripped him from feeling. He has a hard time remembering some things and it bothers him greatly. I will be interested to see what becomes of this later in the novel.
I personally enjoyed constantly encountering the phrase, "so it goes" throughout the novel after being informed of a person related to the novel's death. I admire how such a small phrase can provide a big alternative to the idea of death and how it's not what everyone perceives it to be. At first I was taken back by the Vonnegut's usage of jumping around from previous war experiences to his post war life and his struggles to create a novel based on WW2. However, I quickly adapted and began to find it interesting how he could describe Billy doing his normal, post war, day to day activities, and then jump to a vivid description of an experience Billy had during the war. I think this was the only way Billy could convert his experiences into a novel because of how much impact the war had on him, and he wants readers to get a sense of what he is going through.
This novel is challenging, yet manageable in its complexity. It was difficult to keep up with at first but as I kept reading, it got easier and easier as I passed through the chapter. Vonnegut chose to use the verse from "Away in the Manger" to foreshadow a future event. It represents that religion played a key role in this time period and still does. He decides to dedicate the novel to fictional characters Mary O'Hare and Gerhard Muller because they both symbolize important people that he knew and respected their ideas enough that he made them into characters in this novel. Finally, the alternate title for the novel, "A Children's Crusade", is very disturbing. Both Slaughterhouse Five and Children's Crusade have some negative connotation, but the involvement of the word children makes the alternate seem even more cruel.
Harrison's comment about the war being like a glacier was completely false and arrogant. I feel very strongly about this topic because I have had relatives that have served, and to say that war will never be minimized or stopped is outrageous. It takes the right people at the right time and although that may sound out of reach as of now, I believe that one day it will be possible. That world peace is an actual possibility. A glacier is a huge mass that cannot be stopped, yes; but it can be melted. And I believe that over the years, war can be diminished as long as the right people are in power and those who want bad with power are stopped before they can start. History repeats itself, patterns occur all the time.
When I hear "So it goes", it makes me feel like he is telling a story or rumor of something that happens. It instills a questioning disposition when he says that, because he makes it seem like the statement may not be true. By saying that he makes us question and think deeper about what he had said. I also think that Harrison Star made a good point. Wars are hard to stop, but I don't think that we should just give up because something is too hard. Anything worth having or doing is a challenge. Mary O'Hare is also an agreeable character. I agree with how she feels as a mother, which is what she represents, but I don't think she should have out-lashed at the narrator like that. It wasn't his fault and he was actually planning on writing a book that was anti-war. She had a good message, but it was aimed at the wrong person.
I love the anti-glacier comment that Harrison Starr made because he basically said that Vonnegut novel being anti-war and what he stood for was useless. War is like a glacier because no matter how you try to avoid it and chip away the problems, the center/core of the glacier/problems still reside. Like glaciers these problems move slowly till they reach a valley fast they slide down to the bottom were war seems the only way out. So like I’m sure Harrison Starr meant that glaciers are always here much like war because the only way to avoid war is to stop having all these problems but with so much diversity in the world that will not happen much like there will always be huge clumps of ice slowly moving.
Mary O’Hare first impression of Vonnegut was that she hated him. Her cold demeanor slowly explodes has her husband and Vonnegut talk about the book that he was currently writing. i must confess I do understand why she would be so passionate with anger as he talked because she was afraid of what his book would entail. Her biggest fear I feel was that he would make war seem like the best time in a young boys life, when it not. She didn't want her children reading those book and thinking that to become men they need to go to war because as she said the men who go to war are mere children forced into a world that is hard and always in life or death situation. I completely understand on where she was feeling but she didn't need to judge him before she even knew just because of his war book he was writing.
I feel like the phrase "so it goes" is often repeated throughout the novel. I agree that Vonnegut uses this phrase every time death occurs or is mentioned, but he expresses it this way so he does not repeat the deaths throughout. He simply uses this phrase so he does not have to simply elaborate on death every time.
The anti-glaicer comment made by Harrison Starr is spot on. Throughout history civilizations have always fought. Weather its about money, religion, or power. Harrison said it right mentioning that that there will always be glaciers, like there will always be wars. Don't get me wrong, I am all for world peace, but unless we come together as one there will always be wars.
An Anthropologistwork in deserts, cities, schools, even in underwater archaeological sites.
I thought it was very unique for him to write the first chapter by being so honest in sharing his life with the readers. Vonnegut mentioned how he would make drunk calls to the operators to try and connect with his long lost girlfriends.
When the author made himself the main character in the beginning and continued the story as the main character being Billy it made me feel as though the author is Billy. But it wouldn't be that obvious, right? So I began to think he might be someone else. I guessed Weary but he dies later(so it goes). So now we're back to Billy.
Time's up.
It's interesting that when Harrison Starr asks what he is working on, that he isn't sure if it's an anti-war book. Vonnegut just replies "Yes, I guess." I would think that most author know what the purpose of the book they are writing is. Not just think yea I guess it's a book about that. The best part however, is Starr' reply to him, asking "why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead?" Saying that war is as easy to stop as a glacier.
But it's 11:44 in Colorado
I think the statement "so it goes" is kind of saying that everything keeps going. Almost like it's saying that something happened then everything else just keeps going. Usually it seems to be put after someone dies. It's like ok they died but, everything else is still going to just keep on going. That's just how life goes. Things happen but everything just keeps going on.
One common thing I’ve noticed about classics, especially ones relating to war, is how they are written. Most books similar to Slaughterhouse - Five are always written with a certain tone, certain vocabulary, and a certain organized chaos. Especially in war books, or anti-war in this case, I’ve realized that the authors frequently include their thoughts and feelings among the story. That their thoughts can be very sporadic and can go on for pages before returning to the actual storyline, and I think that is important. I don’t know why, but I always appreciate reading their input. In a way, I suppose many people, like myself, think that way. Not in full, coherent thoughts, but in fragments that are frequently interrupted and I think that’s a reason to enjoy it. Another reason, is that it temporarily pulls us away from the plot and gives us more to analyze and think about. Many out-of-context statements are very thought provoking.
Chapter One is entirely made up of Vonnegut’s thoughts and memories, and opinions on his book. It takes us through his creative process and admits that, yes, this book will is “jumbled and jangled” (19). And have you not noticed this among other classics? Such as Catcher in the Rye? Holden goes off on tangents for pages at a time only to return to the present. I don’t really know where I’m going with this, it’s just something I notice. Personally, I enjoy getting in the writer’s/narrator’s head and seeing a glimpse of what’s going on.
I found it strange and different that Vonnegut made himself a character in chapter 1. He wanted you to get to know him and how it all began before beginning the actual story. "So it goes" is a phrase used often. I believe he used this phrase to show that whatever happened in the war is over and cant be changed. I think it is also used yo show that bad things happen so you shouldn't grieve about anything for too long.
Post a Comment