Coward or Genius

I really liked Francisco Serna’s blog post "Another Piece to the Puzzle". He discussed two points that I recognize as being very interesting, and give the book that complexity we’ve all seen. First of all, it’s the dilemma of what role Vonnegut plays in the novel, and what was the relation between Billy Pilgrim and Kurt Vonnegut. Like Francisco, I was very confused on this. First I thought Billy was the personification of Vonnegut’s war trauma. Then I was doubtful if Vonnegut was the narrator or an actual character in the book. But as Francisco says it, all these doubts are ended in “Chapter 5”, when Vonnegut says “That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book.”. There is clearly no point in disagreeing now, that Vonnegut is as real as a character as Billy Pilgrim is. They two were war veterans, in the same war. The lived the Dresden bombing together, they lived in the concentration camp with the British together. But now the question arises, how does Vonnegut know so much about Billy Pilgrim?

Another interesting detail of the book, that I hadn’t caught onto until Francisco told me, was how Vonnegut critiqued the Christians and the American people, but in an “indirect” manner. What do I mean? It’s obviously Vonnegut’s idea to critique them, it’s his opinion. But in the book, those opinions appear to be from other books, as if other people had written them, not Vonnegut. He critiques the Christians in “The Gospel from Outer Space” by Kilgore Trout, and critiques the Americans in Howard W. Campbell Jr.’s monogram. I completely agree with Francisco that this has a level of cowardice in it. But, I also think that putting those things behind those books is essential to the novel. Because it could be interpreted that Billy built part of his life after war based on Trout’s book. And clearly Vonnegut couldn’t say that he thought that, hence Billy thought that. Vonnegut had to place those ideas somewhere in the novel for Billy to access them. 

Kilgore Trout = Tralfamadorians?

Whilst reading “Chapter 5”, I started to get the feeling that there no longer was a relation between time and plot, like in most other books that everything happens in chronological order and that give the book a meaning. I used to think that the main “plotline” was Billy during the war in Germany, and that all the time travels occurred from here, and when they were over he would be back in Germany. But “Chapter 5” was such an entanglement of ideas and moments in different periods of time that I left my original idea behind. Now I see that all the moments are the plot itself, that time plays a huge role in the book, but at the same time is almost insignificant in terms of the plot’s development. I got the feeling that it was almost as if Vonnegut was trying to tell us Billy’s story as a Tralfamadorian book would. If seen as one, it makes complete sense; we would see Billy’s entire life. But we can’t see like Tralfamadorians, so we just see a compilation of random moments in Billy’s life, which don’t follow the traditional chronological order of a plot.

Destiny and the acceptance of it also play a big role in this chapter (actually in the whole book). I realized that Vonnegut exposes in his writing some things that resemble the Tralfamadorian ideology. Not only his writing style, like I described in the above paragraph, but his constant use of the phrase “so it goes” has some Tralfamadorian philosophy in it. Throughout the book it has been explained that these aliens see every single moment, but that each moment can never be altered. Every moment exists, will exist, and has always existed the way it is. So we can merely accept each moment, because everything is predetermined. We cannot avoid war; we cannot avoid anything, not even the end of the whole universe. Which Tralfamadorians have already seen; it’s one of their own who accidentally blows up the whole universe. But as their philosophy goes, that moment has always been that way, so they can merely accept it, and not blame it on them or anyone, it simply is. Vonnegut’s use of the phrase “so it goes” is in fact this philosophy; he can do nothing about the person that just died, he can merely accept it, but not blame it on him. Also, Vonnegut could introduce this ideology into the book due to his war trauma as a way to accept all the tragedies that happened in war.

Another interesting detail that I caught onto while reading “Chapter 5” was the tremendous similarity between Kilgore Trout’s books and the Tralfamadorian ideology. This similarity led me to think that the Tralfamadorians could be simply an invention of Billy’s. Why do I think this? Because Billy starts reading these novels while he is at the mental hospital, during a time in his life where life itself has failed for him. He says it himself; he is trying to rebuild everything around him due to his war trauma. So the fact that he was in such a vulnerable state and that Trout’s novels helped him through it, could easily lead to the conclusion that Billy introduced Trout’s ideas into his new rebuilt view of life.

Billy Pilgrim: Murdered?

I know many people wouldn’t opt to do this: two reading blogs about the same chapter. But for me, “Chapter 4” had so many details to look at and analyze (as it might be obvious from my past reading blog). In the past blog I really got into talking about Vonnegut’s use of “mustard gas and roses” as a description of his breath. But I left out other stuff that I also consider important in the chapter, for example the role fate or destiny plays in the Tralfamadorian ideology. Or how the chronological order of things directly affect its meaning. Or finally how Billy’s death is foreshadowed.

After Billy receives the call from the drunk stranger, he watches a movie about World War II. But as he is unstuck in time, he is able to see the movie backwards and then forwards. Here is where the idea of “order of events=meaning” comes into our mind. It could also be a simple fact of our perception. When Billy watches the movie backwards, its meaning is also turned around. Vonnegut tells us how the movie now talks about planes taking back all the damage they did, taking back the bombs, leaving them on the factories, the bombs being unassembled, and how everything is turned back to the point where it cannot hurt anyone. In his mind, Billy continues this backwards movie, until Hitler becomes a baby, and all humanity works back towards creating Adam and Eve. This is a perfect example of Vonnegut further messing around with the concept of time in Billy’s story. This event also defies the Tralfamadorian perception of time, making us see how chronological order of things is important for its meaning. If Billy had the same perception of time as the Tralfa
madorians, this wouldn’t have happened, because they think that each moment simply is and there is no further explanation of that. But when Billy changed the chronological order of the movie, each moment was altered to represent something completely different.

In my past blog post I had mentioned how interesting it was that Vonnegut could introduce little details that seemed insignificant, but actually contributed a lot to the development or understanding of the story. In the beginning of the chapter, this detail is the breath of mustard and gas. But later on, Vonnegut actually foreshadows Billy’s death. When Weary dies in the boxcar, he let everyone know that it had been Billy’s fault, and he wanted to be avenged. Paul Lazzaro, whom Vonnegut describes as having even worst of a body than Billy, had promised to Weary that he would make Billy pay for his death. In fact, I’m not sure if this is actually how Billy is going to die, but it could be very possible. Seeing how Vonnegut gives away important parts of the story in such small details. I’m eager to keep reading and find out whether if this is actually the way that Billy Pilgrim dies. 

Mustard Gas and Roses

In the very beginning of “Chapter 4”, there is a quote that jumped at me as soon as I read it. It was: “Billy answered. There was a drunk on the other end. Billy could almost smell his breath-mustard gas and roses. It was a wrong number. Billy hung up.” Why did it jump at me? It reminded me to the phrase in “Chapter 3” where Vonnegut introduces himself directly into Billy’s story (like I talked about in my past blog post). This quote has exactly the same effect. In “Chapter 1”, Vonnegut talked about how, searching for information for his book, he used to get drunk and call old friends. He specifically said in two parts, that he had a breath of mustard gas and roses, just like the guy who called Billy. So, could this mysterious caller, actually be Vonnegut? It amazes me how Vonnegut can give this story such weird and interesting twists, in such a subtle way. Where one apparently insignificant detail, could alter my interpretation of the book, or at least Vonnegut’s role in it.

This quote also refutes my idea that “Chapter 1” might have been written before the rest of the book. Honestly, I believe that it’s more logical to think that Vonnegut described himself as having “mustard gas and roses” in his breath, and then placing himself into the story. Rather than writing the whole story, and then describing himself as having that scent in his breath, or introducing an extra event into his book just so he could be part of it. This next part might make no sense, because it could contradict everything I just said, but I actually am this confused about this idea. I haven’t been able to decide which interpretation to stick by. It could be possible that Vonnegut wrote the quote about the mustard gas and roses in the drunk’s breath, and then, identified himself with that quote, thus leading him to describe his own breath that way in “Chapter 1”.

In my past blog post, I explained how I thought Billy was the personification of Vonnegut’s trauma, and that Vonnegut was an invisible character in Billy’s story. But in this quote used in “Chapter 4”, he physically brings himself into the story. He makes himself a character in the night that redefined Billy’s life. Not an invisible character that acts as a narrator, but a flesh and bone character able to make calls. Although, with the complexness of things like time in this book, Vonnegut could be both the invisible character/narrator, and the flesh and bone character that makes the call.

Another idea that came to me, actually during the process of analyzing this quote, is that Vonnegut might not actually be introducing himself into Billy’s story. He could be introducing Billy’s story into his life, into his world. If Billy is Vonnegut’s trauma, it would make sense that he tries to connect it to his real life, telling the reader that Billy’s story has some truth to it. That it’s not just a bizarre fiction story.

Soldier exposed to mustard gas

I had no idea what mustard gas was, so I investigated a bit on it. It was actually a chemical weapon used during the war, it was categorized as a “lethal gas”, and it can also be called “sulfur mustard”. It gets its name from the yellow color it sometimes has, and the mustard-like scent it carries. It’s an alkylating agent, and what does that mean? This chemical destroys DNA and cells, and it liquefies any tissue it comes in contact with. It doesn’t kill instantly, but rather tortures the person for more than 48 hours. It’s so curious how Vonnegut combines two opposing things to represent his breath, mustard gas (which like I just said) represents a horrible death, and roses which represent love and passion. I think it’s almost as if Vonnegut was trying to tell us how confused war had left him, how deeply traumatized he was.   

Billy: Vonnegut's Trauma

In my past reading blog, I had briefly mentioned that there might be a connection between Billy Pilgrim and Vonnegut himself. While discussing with other people, this connection evolved into the idea that Billy Pilgrim might be a representation of some sort of Vonnegut, and his disturbed mind after war. But as I read through chapter three, that conclusion shifted a bit, because in one point, Vonnegut writes “I was there. So was my old war buddy, Bernard V. O’Hare.” This looks like it should’ve been a foot note, but it wasn’t, so it introduces Vonnegut himself into Billy’s story, making me doubt whether they might be the same person. I got the feeling that Vonnegut might be the mysterious narrator of Billy’s story, as if he was another person that was in the same train kart as Billy. Or that Vonnegut gave life to his war trauma, and named it Billy. I know this idea is confusing, so I’ll do my best to explain. Billy is the representation of Vonnegut’s war trauma, and Vonnegut, is like an invisible character in the story, watching his trauma (Billy) evolve, and that’s why he is able to jump through time.

Through the chapter, I also confirmed my idea about the phrase so commonly used by Vonnegut “So it goes.” Like I commented on Mateo’s blog, Vonnegut uses it right after he talks about someone’s death. It seems as if it was his way of accepting things and moving on, like Billy Pilgrim’s poster in his office: "God grant me the serenity to accept things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference." That poster might be a way of Vonnegut introducing his ideology into Billy’s story, or subconsciously explaining his phrase “so it goes.” Death cannot be changed, merely accepted, and that is what Vonnegut does.

Finally, the cyclical use of time I had mentioned in previous blog posts keeps going with the time travels. The story doesn't run on a straight line, but rather jumps back and forth, between the present (or past) and the future, giving us a better idea of Billy's entire life. 

The Entirety of Billy´s Life

With the statement at the end of Chapter one, and beginning of Chapter 2: “Billy has become unstuck”, I get the feeling that the main character of the book, might actually be tied to Vonnegut himself. Vonnegut´s writing process is cyclical, like his altered perception of time. When he says Billy has become unstuck, he is actually referring to the point in Billy´s life where he had his first “time travel”, but as Vonnegut´s writing is related to time, I think it could represent himself saying something like “finally I could start wringing”.

During Chapter 2, the narrator tells us the background of Billy´s story. He was born in 1922, and in 1967 survived an airplane crash that caused him to go crazy and talk about being kidnapped by aliens, where his perception of time was altered. Vonnegut also introduces Billy´s daughter, Barbara, who has grown old in spirit due to her father´s ill mental state. Then, the story continues to tell the reader about how things led to Billy´s first “time travel”; which in my opinion was just death´s delirium.

Billy had tagged along three American soldiers, who called themselves The Three Musketeers. While traveling through the Luxembourg forest, Billy leans against a tree, and in his exhaustion, he experiences a time warp in his mind. I don’t have clear if he travels to the future in his mind, but if I’m right that the present was 1944, then he did travel to the future. Seeing glimpses of what his life could be, instead of the suffering he was living in the Luxembourg forest. As a result of this delirium, the two scouts from The Three Musketeers, decide to ditch Billy and Weary (the other guy from the group that always pushed Billy to keep going).

Since the beginning, Vonnegut reveals the beginning, the middle and what could be the end of Billy´s story. Making us see his life, not as a sequence of linear moments, but rather his whole life as one. Understanding the instability and confusion of Billy as he jumps from time to time in his life. 

Chapter 1 - Slaughterhouse-five by Kurt Vonnegut

I think “Chapter 1” is the wrong name for the first part of Kurt Vonnegut´s Slaughterhouse-five. It should simply be called “Introduction”, because honestly, that’s what it is. It is completely different from the rest of the novel, because it is autobiographical. Vonnegut talks, in first person, about Dresden and the war experiences and how he intends to write a book about it. Though I think the main idea of this introduction, is the confusing writing process of Vonnegut, as he struggles to put the experiences on paper. He tells us that he doesn't remember almost anything, so he goes and visits his veteran friend O´Hare, to see if together, they can shed light upon the events that constituted his experiences in Dresden, as a war prisoner. Vonnegut clearly comes out and says that he is incapable of writing this book, that in his messy process, he encounters what we could call a wall. He is blocked by it, already having his brilliant outline, but not being able to write the book. 

I am completely familiar with the problem that Vonnegut describes in “Chapter 1”. Honestly, I even encountered it at the beginning of this assignment. Though, I´d never expect a successful writer to encounter those types of problems, just like people don’t expect doctors to get sick. But as Vonnegut puts it, it happens, even to the best of us, and it´s hard to get over it. I think maybe it happens to him because of his mixed feelings towards the war, or because he creates a writing process in his perception of time: cyclical. 

His perception of time first changes when he is stuck in Boston before going to Dresden. Where he says that it seemed as if someone was playing with clocks, or time itself. This perception if time is show in the lumberjack song, whose last lime is also the first line, making it an endless loop. Will this perception of time take a bigger role in the rest of the book? 

Vonnegut talks so clearly about his confusion before starting the book, that I get the feeling that he actually wrote this “Chapter 1” after finishing the whole book. Because honestly, if he was in fact in such a mess of ideas as he describes, would he really be able to look upon it so clearly and describe it as he does? 

The Perfect Life by John Koethe

In “The Perfect Life” by John Koethe, I don’t think he describes a perfect life, but rather how our perception of life changes as we grow old. As kids, everything makes us happy, we have no disappointments, no regrets, and we look forward to the next day. But as we grow old, no matter how interesting the present is, he says everything “turns colorless and cold” (Koethe J. – The Perfect Life). I relate to the poem in the sense that, as kids, everything is wonderful. That happened to me. As a little boy, my life was filled with magic (like Santa), and everything, from the smallest thing, seemed so incredible. My biggest problems were limited to not finding my favorite toy, or the TV show I liked wasn’t playing at the moment. Thinking back, all that can be simply explained by lack of experience (I’m not saying it wasn’t great, I’m just saying that it was so great because we hadn’t lived as much as we have now). As I grew up, gaining experience, the magic vanished, and the things that I saw as special were just incorporated to my everyday life, becoming invisible, and most of the time boring. It has come to the point that now I find TV boring.

Some things, stay special forever

But as all those things lost their “specialness”, new things came along, things that I never thought of as a little kid. Yes, problems now are more serious than they used to be, but happiness is deeper and more special. The fact that the things we saw as special when kids lose their magic as we grow old doesn’t mean that our life is boring. It just means that it’s time to get out there and find new things to make us happy. Life has so many things to be found, it has so many variations, that I have to disagree with the second part of the poem. You have the option to make your life boring, or perfect, because perfection is a matter of perception.

Right now, I think my life is perfect, unlike Koethe in his poem. I’m happy, I have everything I want, and everything I need. Maybe it’s the fact that I haven’t lived as long as he has. But I’m certain, that if I play my cards right, I’ll be as happy in the future. Yes, probably what is special today won’t be in the future, but just like it happened since I was a little boy, I’ll find new things that will seem special, and fill my life with happiness.