The Gutless Wonder

I believe Vonnegut inserted a segment of Trout's book, The Gutless Wonder, to show satire in American values. Vonnegut is showing the futility of humans. The robots in The Gutless Wonder is not accepted in the human society because of the horrible breath they have. Once the bad breath is treated, humans accept them. It is shocking that the humans accept the robots because the robots are conducting very violent actions. The robots drop burning gasoline on the humans from airplanes not knowing the harm they are inflecting on the humans. The robots do not the harm they are causing because they have no conscience. The humans find this to be okay because the robots resemble humans and conduct humanly actions. The humans are willing to accept the robots into their society, and ignore their acts of violence as long as they have acceptable social manners.

Hunter Warren

When Montana Wildhack asks Billy to tell her a story, why does he launch into a war story, do you think? Why do we not get her reaction to the story?

“‘Tell me a story,’ Montana Wildhack said to Billy Pilgrim in the Tralfamadorian zoo one time.” (228) If anyone that has read an ounce of this book, they would automatically assume that Pilgrim will whip out ideas and thoughts pertaining to the bombing on Dresden. Because the war has mentally imprinted images, thoughts, and sounds into Billy’s head, he is unable to process and convey information to himself and others without relating to his past war experiences. It is very obvious that Pilgrim suffers with a case of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Although it may not seem to affect him so much because he is used to it, I feel bad for the people around him that have to deal with his PTSD such as Wildhack. In this case, Wildhack is empty of sweets that a normal pregnant woman may want to have, so she asks Billy to tell her a story. Due to the fact that Billy is still caught up in his previous life, Wildhack is still free of what she wants to hear. She wants to hear a good story to get her mind off of the things that she wants. Because she is deprived of food and a good story, I feel as though Wildhack refrains from commenting on what Pilgrim has to say because she honestly has no emotions. Just as with anyone else, if you are deprived of absolutely everything you want, you may feel as though you have no emotions, therefore you may just want to go on with your day in silence just as Wildhack did in this portion of the book.

Drew Bowers - Question 1

At this point in the book, it appears to me that the story is begging to become a little dry. I think that the introduction of Campbell is a very minute, but an essential, part of the story. In my interpretation, Vonnegut introduces Campbell, and his wild and crazy plan, into the story because the characters need something to boost their morale at this point. They almost need something to make them laugh and at least let themselves know that they aren't the craziest ones in there as Mr. Campbell appears to be. Mr. Campbell introduces his “Free American Corps” plan, “You’re going to have to fight the communists sooner or later,” said Campbell, “Why not get it over with now?”. Withered and tiring away from working in the syrup factory all day, Billy Pillgram was not to into Campbell's proposition. Campbell was dressed head to toe in the most ridiculous fashion, as described in the book. I think that Vonnegut dresses Campbell so elaborately because the whole character of Campbell is so elaborate essentially. Campbell is an American who had become a Nazi, which that in itself is kinda crazy. Campbell’s whole entire plan is nuts, so it only fits that he looks the part too. He was also wanting to make it known that he was a converted Nazi by making sure that he was covered in swastikas. I think that all in all, Vonnegut put Campbell in the story to produce some kind of morale. However, in the end, this goal to produce some kind of morale is achieved when Derby decides to stand up and call Campbell out. He decided that Campbell was a “snake” but he later corrected himself because a snake was apparently to high of an honor for Campbell. As it was said by Vonnegut, “Poor old Derby, the doomed high school teacher, lumbered to his feet for what was probably the finest moment in his life.”

Steven Voigt - Q1

Howard Campbell was an interesting made-up character that represents all that is bad in war. He's an American who became a Nazi. Campbell is now trying to recruit men from the slaughterhouse to be a part of "The Free American Corps," which is supposed to fight only on the Russian front. One thing that stands out about Campbell is his extravagant uniform, "He was sheathed in a blue body stocking which had yellow stripes running from his armpits to his ankles." Vonnegut dressed Campbell in crazy clothes because the entire idea of this character is rediculous itself. His ideas about fighting the Russians make no sense because the Americans and Russians are allies. After Campbell gave his speech about fighting the Russians and joining "The Free American Corps," he did not get much response from the tired and sick croud. After a long pause, one man stood up to respond to Campbell's crazy ideas. Old man Derby explains to Campbell that every soldier there was willing to fight and die for the ideals of the American form of government. Derby spoke for everyone about the American and Russian brotherhood, and how they would overcome Nazism. I feel like Vonnegut introduced this Howard Campbell character in order to give the Americans some boost in morale. Old Derby's speach reiterates to the American soldiers that they are still fighting together to overcome the Nazis.

Why Money doesn't Grow on Trees...

On page 213, Vonnegut inserts a short dialogue between Trout and the newspaper girl during a meeting; this passage is used to convey Vonnegut’s most basic thoughts about war. The girl and Trout are having what seems like a meaningless conversation with each other. The girl asks Trout if she wins the competition, if she could bring along her sister to “Martha’s Vineyard”. He quickly responded with “Hell No, you think money grows on trees?” Billy explains to the reader the irony of that statement, as Trout had written a book about a tree that did actually grow money. Its leaves were “twenty dollar bills”, its flowers were “government bonds”, and its fruit was “diamonds”. In the book, Trout dictates that constant fighting occurs at the base of the tree; this results in the deaths of all who attempt to get near the tree. The remains of these attempts in turn rot in order to fertilize the tree. This is where Vonnegut’s true opinion on war can be applied. He makes a parallel between the tree in Trout’s book and the nature of mankind at war. Vonnegut hints this parallel on the previous page when talking about how familiar Trout looks to Billy. He even says Billy thinks he looks like a “prisoner of war”. The tree depicted in the book shows the irrational actions of humans when greed is involved. It is implied that not very many people get to reap the benefits of this magical tree, because they are too busy killing each other and fertilizing the tree. Rather than work together and have mutual gain from it, greed sets in and leads to the deaths of all the people going to the tree. This is how Vonnegut feels about war; people’s greed ends in countless deaths for no apparent reason. Instead of coexisting peacefully and having a successful planet, humans deem it necessary to kill each other mindlessly. On the same token these people are going to their deaths at the base of this tree all because of the rotten nature of mankind. Vonnegut makes a great parallel between Trout’s book and his opinions. He shows the intentions of the novel in a brilliant way in just a short passage.

response to question 9

Anna Aycock

response to question 9

Kurt Vonnegut writes a lot of details in describing Valencia’s car after she wrecks. He says that, “the gaping trunk looked like the mouth of a village idiot who was explaining that he didn’t know anything about anything” (234). How Billy acts is a lot like how the trunk of the beat up car looks. Both of these things: Billy and the now wrecked car have a lot in common. They are both said to be acting like a stranger in a new place. Billy is always going from place to place and never knowing where he will be next; Vonnegut makes many similarities between these two. He also states that, “The back window was veined with cracks” (234). Billy has a very difficult time in his life between time traveling and also the hardships that the war has caused on him. These have made him extremely similar to the cracked window. They are both flawed and imperfect but are just holding it together. The window is still intact but barely, Billy is barely holding it together also he has a hard time relating with the world especially because of his time traveling and being yanked from one time in his life to a totally different one. Vonnegut also talks about how the exhaust system is now totally disconnected from the rest of the car and is laying on the ground. This relates to Billy because it shows you that he has had a difficult time in his life and it is more difficult for him because he is being put through them it over and over again. Some people would say that Billy has a few bolts missing or that he is not completely sane, this might be true especially since he talks about aliens and believes in them. That is that he has imagined some things in life that may not be true but it is the way that he deals with all the horrible things that he has seen in his life and I do not think that I would handle it any better.

There Is No Greatness in Eternity

Wezly Barnard

Eternity lasts forever. This is a difficult concept to wrap one’s mind around, especially when in reality nobody can experience eternity. It is inevitable that human life has an ending. Vonnegut is not overjoyed with Billy Pilgrim’s Tralfamadorian perspective that humans live forever; because he believes there is great power in death. Vonnegut brings this point home with the mentioning of a few deceased greats. “Robert Kennedy, whose summer home is eight miles from the home I live in all year round, was shot two nights ago. He died last night.” Robert Kennedy is the first name Vonnegut mentions to illustrate his point. This is directly followed by a reference of another influential man. “Martin Luther King was shot a month ago. He died, too.” The fact that Vonnegut brought these two instances up immediately before he introduces the Tralfamadorians’ worldview indirectly shows us why he does not linger on the idea. Vonnegut uses names that have been remembered many years after their death. Although Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King are not living in the physical life anymore their name still live on. This shows that Vonnegut finds peace in the fact that he will not live forever. He will not have to live with his own memories and experiences. “If what Billy Pilgrim learned from the Trafalmadorians is true, that we will all live forever, no matter how dead we may sometimes seem to be, I am not overjoyed.” Vonnegut second major argument against this idea is described when he discusses Charles Darwin. “who taught that those who die are meant to die, that corpses are improvements.” This is an example of how things can be accomplished through death. He does not linger and is not overjoyed by this worldview because he understands the importance of death.

Money Tree

I think that the excerpt in the novel about the money tree is meant to invoke deep thoughts in Vonnegut's readers. I think that the money tree itself is a form of temptation to which most people would fall. This temptation leads to the death of many people in the story, so it goes. I think that the money tree is a symbol of a cause. I think the symbol of a cause relates to the cause of fighting that Billy Pilgrim goes through as a soldier.
Many people die as a result of cause and the effects of war on this world. Though the trees leaves are twenty dollar bills, its fruit is diamonds, many people who try to come to this tree end up fighting for no apparent reasons. Then, their fighting leads to the death of many people. These dead bodies that are at the base of the tree fertilize it, allowing the tree to put forth more leaves of twenty dollar bills, and more fruit of diamonds.
I think the symbol of the tree was included in Vonnegut's novel to show his perspective on war. As an anti-war novel, the symbol of the tree that everyone wants to get to, leads to death and destruction. We later find that if we only would wait, that the tree would produce much good if we chose to fertilize it and help it to grow and produce, instead of killing each other over the goods it has to offer. I think that Vonnegut strives to show his readers that if we could only try to help situations that might end in war first, without bombing and causing the deaths of millions of people, that we could all learn to live together peacefully, and all of us would gain from the experiences. If the people in the tree story would have worked together to supply the tree with adequate needs, they would have all been able to be happy in the end without the needless death and destruction that is caused by greed and misunderstandings.

Comparing Jesus and Billy

In Kurt Vonnegut’s book, Slaughterhouse Five, Billy Pilgrim is portrayed to be the type of “man” that rarely sheds a tear. Most wars have the opposite effect on people, but not Billy. “Crying doesn’t indicate that you’re weak. Since birth, it has always been a sign that you’re alive. I don’t think Billy would have agreed with this quote because he didn’t feel the need to cry very often. His response when people died were so it goes. A time in which I thought he would cry was when his wife died, but he didn’t even then. When she died, he was pretty much a vegetable in the hospital. This could have affected the way he felt toward the situation. Throughout the book, Billy had not cried once until he came upon the two horse pitiers. On page 252 it says, “Billy asked them in English what it was they wanted, and they at once scolded him…When Billy saw the condition of his means of transportation, he burst into tears. He hadn’t cried about anything else in the war.” This statement helps explain that Billy doesn’t believe in crying because it doesn’t help the situation. In his case, he could have taken the side of the Tralfamadorians in realizing that everyone dies in some point in time. In the stanza of “Away in a Manger” when it says, “The Baby awakes. But the little Lord Jesus No crying he makes,” it is not often that babies do not cry when they are woken up. Billy and Jesus can be compared to each other because they both experience difficulties and reasons that one would cry. Billy goes through the war losing people all around him and seeing cruelty. Jesus, even as a baby, did not cry when he was awakened. When Jesus was crucified, he did not cry. I am sure he wanted to, and there is not a single person in this world that couldn’t have held it within them. Billy and Jesus show a similar characteristic of strength. They both endured some very painful things such as death and dying in which many people cry. This is not saying that they both never cried because they did. Billy cried because the condition of the horses, and he also wept. Vonnegut says, “Later on, as a middle-aged optometrist, he would weep quietly and privately sometimes, but never make loud boohooing noises.” The stanza of “Away in a Manger,” says, “No crying he makes.” John 11:34-35 reads, “Master, come and see, they said. Now Jesus wept.” Jesus wept when Mary and the Jews came weeping to him over the death of Mary’s brother Lazarus. He also wept when he approached the city of Jerusalem in Luke 19:41. They both wept over the condition of someone or something besides themselves. I think this shows that Billy Pilgrim and Jesus didn’t cry often. When they did, they wept quietly. Jesus and Billy demonstrate that there is really no need in crying; however, there is need for weeping.

Callie Holloway

Fate?

While reading about Valencia’s fender bender, one notices that Vonnegut emphasis on the aftermath and damage done to the car. The in death detailing symbolizes a numerous amount of different ideas. For instant, the other car happens to be a Mercedes, which is a German made car, thus instantly connects the accident to the war. The Mercedes only lost a headlight due to the abrupt hit; however, Valencia’s car had a huge gaping truck that “looked like the mouth of a village idiot who was explaining he didn’t know anything about anything.” This represents how Billy appears to the world. Billy is always trying to explain to the world that the tralfamadorians taught him how to travel through time; Billy claims that he has seen his death numerous, which leads one to believe that Vonnegut does not believe in free will. The next important detail is the Ronald Reagan bumper sticker. In World War II, Billy was fighting against the same things that Ronald Reagan did in the Cold War, communism. This detail helps connect the rest of the details as effects to Billy. For example, after the muffler falls off, Valencia drives off, leaving it lying on the pavement. This prominently describes how Billy is disconnected with the world and time. It seems as if Billy has fallen off the deep end, causing him to appear completely insane to the rest of the world. The muffler makes the car sound like a “heavy bomber,” which reconnects the car to the war once again. Wars usually end in uncountable number of deaths. The car is a metaphor that Valencia’s life is going to end unenviable, in a similar way that many of the Jews died, from carbon monoxide poisoning. According to Vonnegut, it was Valencia’s fate to die from the car accident, although the wreck was a simple fender bender, it ended in a tragic death. Valencia could have caused her fate by her free will because she was hysterical from everything that had just happened. If she had not missed her turn and slammed on her brakes, than she never would have gotten into the accident that led to her death. If someone question Billy wither he believed in fate of free will, he would say fate because the tralfamadorians had shown him how to travel around in time and see what is going to happen in the future. The details from the car accident can lead to several other opinions and connections throughout the book.

Every Mans Fantasy

Imagine yourself as an oddly shaped man, naked and alone with a famous, female porn star on the planet Tralfamadore. This may be difficult if you have never heard of Tralfamadore, however readers of Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut are all to familiar with this scenario. Billy Pilgrim is the books main character who is living in a dull, safe marriage to Valencia Merble, she "was as big as a house because she couldn't stop eating"(36). Throughout his life he is haunted by effects of WW2 and becomes a time traveler to help cope with the desperate times in his life. Billy's time travels lead him to the planet Tralfamadore. "He was displayed naked in a zoo" and mated with a "former Earthling" porn star "named Montana Wildhack" (32). Montana Wildhack is first introduced to readers at the end of chapter 5. Billy is under his electric blanket warm snugly and alone, he becomes unstuck in time and travels to the first time he met beautifully shaped porn star, Montana. "Montana was naked and so was Billy", the aliens broke record attendance at the zoo and "everybody on the planet wanted to see the Earthlings mate"(168). Billy was naked and oddly shaped, Kurt Vonnegut describes him as "funny looking...tall and weak, and shaped like a Coca-Cola" bottle (30) while Montana Wildhack is assumed as flawless and perfectly shaped as a porn star. On page 228 Montana asks Billy to tell her a story, Billy immediately talks about his WW2 experiences. Billy retells the incidents at Dresden with some detail and yet Vonnegut escapes Billy back to the war with no reaction from Montana. This leads the reader to assume that Billy and Montana have an understanding of each other. Montana knows that Billy will become "unstuck" in time and will resume time travel. On page 264, Montana asks Billy "Time-traveling again?...I can always tell", this leads readers to believe that the relationship between the two zoo specimens is a real, honest understanding of one another. In real life Billy does not disclose Dresden to fat Valencia and every time he lays in bed the time-traveling Billy becomes a mate to a porn star who understands him (Duh, every mans fantasy). Montana's character was designed to be a flat character who aids the main character (Billy) through the plot. Montana has no real opinion on anything thus serves as a sex toy to a frustrated war veteran with mental illness. Kurt Vonnegut creates Montana as a nice distraction for Billy as he copes with post-war trauma.

Robotic Humans

Of course we all know how people change when they have been to war. Kurt Vonnegut is arguably “crazy” after returning, but he seems to be developing this “crazy” attitude of his during the war. In the beginning of chapter 8, Vonnegut says that “people are discouraged from being characters” (208). During war, people tend to lose track of time, and of who they really are; soldiers who are in battle day in and day out almost become insensitive to reality. They are men forced to take orders, and if disobeyed, they will most likely be executed. They are men, forced to be robots.
Imagine yourself doing the same thing over and over again with no seeming end to whatever it is that you’re doing. Knowing there is no end; time has no significance to you anymore; so much for hours, days, months, and years. During this time your one objective is to kill any man you see of the enemy. When people are ordered to do the same thing over and over again without having any say in what to do, it becomes a system of action, and this is in my opinion where most people lose their character in the war.
The only people that make a difference are usually the ones who are conscious. Derby in this case seems to be a person who keeps a lot to himself. Being a high school teacher, he needs to be very appropriate at all times and an example for his students, but also can’t express himself. When it’s time to speak up, he does. The only people able to gather strength are the ones who aren’t afraid to be themselves and refuse to be robots.

Michael's Blog

I think that us as readers will believe anything that is written in a book to an extent. We are taught at a young age that if you read books you’ll expand your mind and become more intelligent on subjects you read about. When Trout and Maggie have this conversation about “if the stuff he writes about is really true”, Trout makes up a story and Maggie believed every word that came out of his mouth. When Then trout backed it up by saying “It’s like advertising. You have to tell the truth in advertising, or you get in trouble” (pg.218). We all know that sometimes even advertising isn’t always truthful they want you to buy their product. Same thing for authors they want to write something that will sell and make them money. In slaughterhouse five Vonnegut uses many surreal scenes throughout this book but at the same time he uses pretty extreme ones as well. He wants to make this book realistic but at the same time he feels that if he does then it’ll be boring so he throws in some ridiculous scenarios like Billy getting in a plane crash and him being the only one that survives the plane crash, after the plane crash he starts telling people that he got kidnapped by the Tralfamadorian’s and was held prisoner for many years but seemed like seconds on Earth. This is when us as readers take a second and say “Wait a minute. Did this really happen? There is no way.” Us as readers have to understand what Vonnegut is trying to write about in this book. My understanding of the book is that he didn’t want to make this book so real that the audience gets bored with it after a couple of chapters and puts it down. He wanted to make it into an interesting story about a kid who entered the war and ever since he has never been the same mentally and physically.

He's going to be a Character...whatever the hell that means!

Vonnegut is trying to make the point that people are discouraged to be something other than plain and boring. They are encouraged to be just like everyone else. Earlier in the passage, Campbell is trying to convince the American men to go with his group and fight the Communists. People were being cowards when they did not stand up for what they believed in and let Campbell just walk all over them.
The line stated, “People are discouraged from being characters.” This means that people were discouraged to be their own person and stand up for their beliefs, whatever their beliefs may be. They are also discouraged to be their “own person”. When you think of a character, you normally think that you will remember them for something special that they did, whether it be very bad or heroic. In this case, Derby was a character hero in the sense that he stood up for his beliefs and did not let Campbell walk all over the entire group in the slaughterhouse. He did not let Campbell talk to the group of American soldiers like they are animals.
When people are discouraged to be characters, they are told to be boring, bland, and like everyone else. People are discouraged from being characters because they authority is scared of what actions those not in authority will take. The authority puts such a threat on the people to not be characters the people listen and the authorities do not have to do anything.
As Derby did take action and did speak up for the group in the slaughterhouse, he was a character and was something other than just another bystander. He told Campbell what he thought because he was fed up with the crap that they all were being put through. By him standing up, he is a character.

Matthew Peeler's Blog

As Montana Wildhack asks Billy Pilgrim to tell her a story, Billy immediately begins telling a war story. To me, this is a natural reaction for anyone who has been in the war. Though this book tends to deviate from typical explanations, I feel like this one is almost as typical as it gets. Throughout the book, it appears that Billy suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This disorder is something that many individuals that come back from war have to deal with. The individual tends to have flashbacks about some of the more difficult times they had during war, just as Billy has. Though the flashbacks do not happen constantly, they often keep the individuals mind stuck on war most of the time. I think this is exactly what happened to Billy as he began to tell his story. Though there is really no evidence to support this story is an actual flashback in itself, I do believe that the flashbacks had an influence on Billy telling this particular story. With it being fresh on his mind, it is easy for him to remember and it is one of the first things that come up. He proceeds to tell Montana about Dresden being destroyed. Though the story did not last for a long period of time, the details of what happened were very precise. He told about what people looked like and what all was lost in the destruction. After Billy tells his story, the book goes of onto another course without a reaction from Montana. This is a rather surprising thing to me, as I would think she would have a rather interesting reaction as her and Billy talk several times throughout the book however, you can understand why there wasn’t a reaction in the book. Oftentimes, people don’t have a certain reaction to a story like this, as they know that the individual telling the story is going through a difficult time. In my opinion, Montana was at a sheer loss of words after Billy told the story about the destruction of Dresden.

Oh the memories...

In Slaughterhouse Five, Billy is famously known for having flashbacks of his past. He experiences and relives everything that has happened to him, both good and bad. He can even see into the future as well, even to the exact day and time of his death. However, on his eighteenth wedding anniversary, what he experienced was a memory instead of his a flashback. His nice white house was full of guests, mostly optometrists and their wives, for a wonderful celebration of their marriage and how long it had lasted. A group of optometrists who attended the party were also known for being in a quartet who called themselves “The Febs”. They entertained the guests with their rehearsed songs and had prepared a special song for the “happy” couple. The quartet began their song, and the chords being sung struck Bill in an unusual way, even to the extent of his facial expressions being distorted. The words of the song also had a big impact on him, one that he did not understand why. On page 220, the song says “So long forever, old fellows and gals, so long forever old sweethearts and pals – God bless ‘em – And so on.” Billy did not understand why this had affected him in such a strange way, seeing as though he had never had old fellows or old sweethearts, yet he missed them anyways. Billy wandered up to his bedroom in an effort to compose himself once again, but instead had a memory visit him. The memory was in Dresden and it was the day of the attack. He had been down in the meat locker with the other Americans and four of their guards while the town around was being destroyed and eaten alive by fire. After spending quite some time in the locker, they resurfaced to find themselves alone with no other survivors. On page 227, it states “The guards drew together instinctively, rolled their eyes. They experimented with one expression and then another, said nothing, though their mouth were often open. They looked like a silent film of a barbershop quartet.” The quartet that was still singing along throughout the night underneath his feet downstairs had reminded him of that tragic day in Dresden. The memory was not one of his famous flashbacks that he relives, but simply a reminder of something that had an impact on his life. It’s just like when we catch a scent unexpectantly that takes us to another place, like home, or a certain holiday, like Christmas.

Vonnegut-Response to Question 13-Billy's happiest moment, or realization?

Throughout Slaughterhouse-Five Vonnegut uses strange events to catch reader’s attention and help the reader become more insightful to the underlying meaning of the text. On pages 250, and 251, is an example of the way a particular passage reveals Vonnegut’s view that he has cleverly been developing throughout the entire text. It is within two pages that he provides evidence for the readers to use in conclusion to the way Vonnegut feels about typical American’s behavior. As Vonnegut described Billy’s happiest moment- a nap in the sun after the war- Billy wakes up to a couple speaking to horses. After reading the pages that follow I was immediately able to understand why this could be Billy’s happiest moment. The illustration of a nap after the war, and waking up in the sun to what the couple expresses to him could be interpreted as symbolizing the way many Americans could have “woken up to the sun” or in other words the way the may have been shown the “light” in how insensitive Americans’ conduct had become. On page 250, “Billy opened his eyes.” Here is where the reader can anticipate a major idea is about to be revealed. Further in the text on page 251, “They were noticing what the Americans had not noticed—that the horses’ mouths were bleeding, gashed by bits…the horses were insane with thirst. The Americans had treated their form of transportation as though it were no more sensitive than a six-cylinder Chevrolet.” At this point the reader has most likely interpreted one very clear message Vonnegut is demonstrating. The way that Americans tend to treat things—as useful as they are to them in that moment, and as for the rest of time and purpose, and after they have thoroughly used it, there in no longer a need to be concerned with condition. Here the soldiers were more concerned with stealing remains from people who had been killed by tragedy and using animals to transport them in the process. The major issue is the way they are treating everything at this point, a lack of concern or care, there is no humanity remaining within their beings. It took the couple, as outsiders, to make Billy aware of just how horrific their actions resulted. When Billy’s reaction is described on page 252, “When Billy saw the condition of his means of transportation, he burst into tears. He hadn’t cried about anything else in war.” There are several things the author could want readers to interpret at this point. One major idea is that this is the first time Billy has been sensitive to something and it brings him to the reality of the devastation. Likewise, in analyzing the previous pages it could show the way Billy is beginning to comprehend how terrible war and destruction has been and it cannot continue to be unnoticed. Possibly the interpretation of the significance in these moments in the relation to the rest of the novel, it is the first time Billy truly realizes the destruction that Americans cause and the way they are also accustom to effortlessly ignoring the consequences. I believe that Vonnegut depicts many dislikable American characters and their behaviors’ in his novel to exemplify the way he feels about Americans, even though he is also American. Once again, unless it is directly affecting our being, it does not matter.

Just a memory??

Throughout Slaughterhouse-Five, written by Kurt Vonnegut, Billy has uncontrollable time shifts. He is one place at one point, and one place in another, and before chapter eight, Billy never just remembers. He always is, or thinks he is, there experiencing past occurrences. In chapter eight though, it is different. He has his first actual memory. Vonnegut makes a clear distinction between Billy being there and having an actual memory by saying, “Billy thought hard about the effect the quartet had had on him, and then found an association with an experience he had long ago. He did not travel in time to the experience. He remembered it shimmeringly-as follows:” (226) Vonnegut then writes about how Billy experienced the bombing that destroyed Dresden. Billy remembers waiting on this bombing in a meat locker with other American prisoners and four guards, and then emerging to find Dresden basically gone, with nothing truly remaining but death. He then remembers the four guards grouped together in a huddle with expressions on their faces swapping between awe and terror. This allows Billy to make an association with the guards and the barbershop quartet, and allows Billy to make a distinction between the "real world", and his time lapses. I think the Febs (also known as the barbershop quartet) make him think back to this event that happened to him, and bring him back to reality. The guards he saw and remember, look very similar to the Febs, which allows him to realize that he is not actually in Dresden experiencing the bombing, but he is just remembering an event in the past.I believe Billy remembers the events like he does so that he can link the loss of the thousands of people in Dresden with his experience in the meat locker with the four guards and other Americans so that he can put this terrible tragedy behind him and stop experiencing it. I think it does exactly that, because later on in the novel, According to Vonnegut, Montana Wildhack says, “Tell me a story,” (228) and Billy starts his story with “Dresden was destroyed on the night of February 13, 1945.” (228) This occurrence shows that he has finally put this event behind him, and that is why he is able to talk about it without actually physically thinking he is there.

Blog #2 on Vonnegut

Dear All,




Below are more questions for the final blog on Kurt Vonnegut. I'd like to have no more than two people per question. Therefore, please lay claim to your question by commenting on THIS blog. You should write something like "I, Jennifer Hughes, hereby claim question 14." Per usual, please answer the question with a clear, thoughtful response of 300-600 words. Strive for polished grammar, and be sure to cite the page numbers of the quotations you include.



1. At the beginning of chapter 8 (206-207), we are introduced to the character Howard W. Campbell (he is a made-up character!). Discuss why Vonnegut would create a character like this and dress him as he does.

2. What point about war is Vonnegut making when he says that in war “people are discouraged from being characters”? (208)

3. What is ironic about the moment when Edgar Derby stands up and gives a speech about American ideals? (209)

4. What do you think is the purpose of the quick summary of Kilgore Trout’s book about a money tree? (213)

5. What do you think the purpose of the quick summary of The Gutless Wonder is? (213-214)?

6. Kilgore Trout and Maggie White have a conversation about whether stuff in novels ever “really happened.” How does this conversation suggest to readers how we should understand our experience of the novel Slaughterhouse Five?

7. On page 226, Billy has his first memory, rather than flashback, about his experience in the war. What is it that he remembers, and why does he remember it like this? How does it relate to the barbershop quartet?

8. When Montana Wildhack asks Billy to tell her a story, why does he launch into a war story, do you think? Why do we not get her reaction to the story? (228)

9. Why do you think that Vonnegut describes Valencia’s car after the accident the way he does?

10. Is it important that we see “the Truman thing” from 23-year-old, 103-IQ-leveled Lily’s eyes? (Hint: yes) Why? (238)

11. Having gotten this far in the book, do you have any ideas why Billy has a flashback to the time he was in a waiting room with a gassy old man?

12. Is it in line with Billy’s character that he would insert himself into his hospital mate’s conversation, as he does, on page 245? What is significant about his assertion “I was there” (also on 247)?

13. From what Vonnegut describes as Billy’s happiest moment – a nap in the sun after the war – Billy wakes up to a couple speaking to horses. What do you interpret as the significance of this moment to the rest of the novel (250-251)?

14. Discuss the inclusion of the stanza of “Away in a Manger” in this chapter and as the epigraph of the novel. What does it say about the value of crying?

15. Compare the views of Dresden held between Rumfoord and Billy after Rumfoord begins to listen to Billy (253-254).

16. What does the scientific investigation of Jesus’s death in the Kilgore Trout novel have to do with the rest of the novel (259-260)?

17. Billy gets onto a radio program in which literary crtics are discussing “whether the novel was dead or not” (263). So it goes! Do you think that Vonnegut believes that novels are useful anymore, based on the conversation he includes?

18. Vonnegut doesn’t really linger on the idea that he doesn’t like Billy Pilgrim’s Tralfamadorian worldview. He says on 269, “I am not overjoyed.” Why is he not overjoyed?

Alas, the fleeting years glide on.

On page 14 of the novel, Vonnegut uses a latin quote. It was a quote by the famous Roman poet Horace. “Eheu, fugaces labuntur anni.” Alas, the fleeting years glide on. Throughout the novel, Vonnegut uses many examples to show that he has a skewed perception of time, and it seems so boring. After the latin quote, Vonnegut references the two limericks he used earlier in the chapter. “My name is Yon Yonson. There was a young man from Stamboul”. This was the first example in the novel of his problem with time. The first limerick shows how useless his memory is now that he is an “old fart”. The next is a limerick that is recited over and over again. It is used to represent the post-war life of Vonnegut. He is constantly repeating the same actions, and eventually they all seem to blur together. The sentences leading up to the Latin quote talk about Vonnegut’s desire to go and meet with his old war buddy, Bernard V. O’Hare. He wanted to speak with him about war memories to help him with his book. Vonnegut explains that he did follow through on his call, and he went to meet with his old buddy. He explains that it was probably around 1964, but not definitely. This is where both the latin quote and both limericks come into play. They all work together to show the point of this passage. Vonnegut cites these limericks many times before this to lead into the quote. Vonnegut is displaying that after the war all of his years have been boring and very similar. So much so that he cannot even distinguish between some of them. It is hard to read sometimes when viewing just how ridiculous the memory of Vonnegut has become post-war.

Vonnegut vs Horace

Kurt Vonnegut writes two limericks early on in his book “Slaughterhouse-Five”; the first one, which starts with the line, “There was a young man from Stamboul,” and the second with “My name is Yon Yonson.” (8) Both limericks send us a different message that has to do with time and effort. The young man’s limerick tells about him yelling at his tool and saying it took his wealth, health, and he won’t even pee anymore. The Yong Yonson verse talks about Yon Yonson being asked about his name by people who pass by and he answers with his name. It implies about life being repetitive and never-ending.
Later in the book he refers to these limericks multiple times to briefly remind us of their message. For example, when there is an occurrence that resembles their deeper meaning. On page 14, Vonnegut uses a quote from Quintus Horatius Flaccus, who is known as Horace in English. He was the leading lyric poet of Rome thousands of years ago. The quote Vonnegut used comes from Latin which reads, “Eheu, fugaces labuntur anni.” This can be translated to “Alas, our fleeting years pass away.” All that means is that unfortunately our years pass by so fast that we don’t have enough time to realize it sometimes. I think he used this quote to illustrate that the time that has passed since the war passed by so fast compared to when he was fighting that he didn’t realize how far ahead he was. Maybe also because by the time he visited his friend, he had so many ideas in his head that he had been thinking about what to write for so long that he forgot how long it has taken him to do all these things to get a book together. There’s many different views you can take on it...

Laurenz S

From the outside looking in

The two drastic perspectives that are revealed to us of the boxcars at the end of chapter 3 are beyond belief to us. At least to me it was. I couldn’t imagine existing in a state like those soldiers did in those boxcars when I first read the passage. The author portrays a sense of mere existence and demonstrates the view of an unwanted hassle as he describes the boxcar from the point of view of a soldier. On page 89 he states, “To the guards who walked up and down outside, each car became a single organism which ate and drank and excreted through its ventilators. It talked or sometimes yelled through its ventilators, too. In went water and loaves of blackened bread and sausage and cheese, and out came shit and piss and language.” The insensitive soldiers who were numb to the whole idea of caging human beings simply saw this boxcar as something they had to babysit and endure during the day. It was just a job…to feed and water these “animals” until they were passed off at the next stop. It was simply a big piece of steel that yelled and consumed their food that was starting to run scarce. From the inside looking out, it was a whole different point of view. These soldiers were cramped and in need of fresh air, exercise, and the right to be treated as a human being rather than a piece of cargo. The guards who watched over the boxcars had one of their own. Billy described it as “heaven” on page 87 and went into saying “There was candlelight, and there were bunks with quilts and blankets heaped on them. There was a cannonball stove with a steaming coffeepot on top. There was a table with a bottle of wine and a loaf of bread and a sausage on it. There were four bowls of soup.” These two different groups of people were treated extremely different. The regular reader would read this passage with sympathy for the cramped soldiers and disgust towards the guards. It affects the reader because it shows just a slight extent of what these captives had to go through and how they were treated. It just goes to show a little glimpse of what soldiers had to endure.

Vonnegut vs. Warren

Racial segregation was a big controversy in the early 1950’s. One of the big court cases during this time was Brown versus the Board of Education. It actually occurred in 1954. A year before, in 1953, Earl Warren was appointed the Chief Justice position of the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower. The time, in which Warren entered his new position, the court was much divided because of the Brown v. Board of Education case. The case was for racial segregation in public schools and how it was unconstitutional. The argument was that it violated the fourteenth amendment, which guarantees all citizens have equal protection of the laws. Warren’s beliefs were that if children in public schools were segregated, it would deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities. He did not agree with the ‘separate but equal’ idea when it came to education. Warren was criticized for his opinion because he wasn’t in total acceptance of the Constitution, but he took the criticism. Why would Kurt Vonnegut want to impeach Earl Warren because it sounds like he is representing something good?
Kurt Vonnegut is known for his black humor as a writing style. Vonnegut’s or, in the book, Billy’s bumper sticker portrays that for some reason he wanted to get Earl Warren out of office. When putting together that one of Vonnegut’s styles is black humor and that Earl Warren wasn’t for racial segregation, it is very clear why Billy had this bumper sticker. Warren believed that all races should be kept together in public schools because he thought that having the opportunity for a good education should be available to everyone, not the majority only. Warren didn’t believe it was fair to discriminate against any minorities. When someone wants to impeach someone, it is usually because he or she does not agree with what that person stands for. In the case, Vonnegut’s writing style hints that he doesn’t necessarily consider everyone to be equal or that everyone should have a chance at a good education. Vonnegut probably agreed that public schools should be segregated; therefore, he didn’t agree with Earl Warren. I think Billy’s bumper sticker shows that he agreed with racial segregation to some extent or otherwise he wouldn’t have wanted to impeach Warren. Billy obviously is not scared to go against what Warren believes because he has the sticker on his car for everyone to see. In a way, Billy is standing up for what he believes in. However, in this situation I disagree with him.

Callie Holloway

Black Humor......

The New York Times said of Vonnegut that he was “Our finest black humorist… We laugh in self defense.” Explain what the NYT meant by that statement.

I think that the NYT has portrayed Kurt Vonnegut's essence properly by saying that he is "our finest black humorist..." Vonnegut's presence through out the novel often times seems humorous to us as his readers. However, the humor that lies within the novel comes from deep thoughts that have embedded themselves in the mind of Kurt Vonnegut himself. As a war veteran, Vonnegut looks back into his life and tries to portray his situations in war and in life through another person, in order to give his novel an interesting twist.

The quote that describes Vonnegut as a black humorist opens the minds of those who have read and tried to understand the constant irrationality that is Slaughterhouse Five. Everyone stereotypes the word black with darkness and evil. However, the darkness of Vonnegut's thoughts intermingle with humor in the situations in which "Billy Pilgrim" goes through. Though Slaughterhouse Five comes across as an anti-war novel, it's dark humor brings light into the situation of war. While in war, there is death, there is struggle, and therefore sometimes seems to be no hope. What is there to do? When you are down and depressed, one cannot help but feel the want to laugh. Though many veterans of war hurt for their lost commrades, I feel that they also have to laugh for the lost. In that feeling of loss, there is no happiness. However, after many years have gone by, we find these veterans telling their stories, and sometimes laughing at their situation. Is this wrong?

For one to laugh after seeing hard times, it takes a while. When all is said and done, laughter always provides the comfort again. To say that Vonnegut is a "black humorist" brings new meaning to the light of his novel. Although sad and "southern gothic-like" as his novel may be, Vonnegut provides that deep down message that even though we might think it may be over, whether that situation be war or hardship, black humor will always be there, to help bring us out.

#7 Hunter Warren

Why does Vonnegut say, at the end of chapter 1, that this book was written by a pillar of salt? Why is that meaningful?

In Genesis 19 in the Bible, God plans to demolish the five cities of the plain, which is where Lot and his family lived. In order to help save the family, God sends angels to the gates of the city where they are met by Lot. After much encouragement the angels stay in the city and reside in Lot’s house for the night. The people of the city wanted to know the reasons for the angels being at Lot’s house, so the angels encourage the family to leave because of what great catastrophe may happen. The son-in-laws take no warning and Lot resides at the house. As the angels take the women away they say, “Save yourselves with all haste. Look not behind you. Get as fast as you are able to the mountain, unless you be involved in the calamity of the city.” As the women leave, Lot’s wife looks backs on Sodom (the city), and is turned into a pillar of salt.

The story of Lot and Vonnegut are very similar in the way their stories are portrayed. In the book, Yon becomes an alcoholic after the war because he looks back on the horrible atrocities that he came in contact with during it. In the story from Genesis 19, the wife looks back on the city of Sodom after she was warned not too. Because of this she was turned into a pillar of salt. I feel as though Yon and Lot’s wife coincide with each other because they both look back on something they knew would hurt them, but they do it anyways. This is very meaningful because Vonnegut is able to relate a character’s experience to an important story of the bible, which shows great meaning. Yon is basically lowered to a pillar of salt because of the troubles that he faces in his life because he looks back on the war. Although he knows that he shouldn’t dwell on the past, he does, and this is what hurts him in the end. Vonnegut is able to imply a very meaningful message in his book by relating a character’s war experience to a story of the Bible.

So it goes Eddie

Fear is a question: What are you afraid of, and why? Kurt Vonnegut answers the question of fear in, Slaughterhouse Five. Vonnegut addresses this through the acts of the character Billy Pilgram and real life Army Private Eddie Slovik. Billy Pilgram experiences challenges throughout the book that reveals to readers his fears by comparing his cowardliness to Private Eddie Slovik.
When arriving to Germany to fight, Billy was a chauffeur for an army chaplain. The Chaplain whom died upon Billy's arrival. Billy was left alone in the woods with no gun, boots or coat. He was weak, scrawny and against his odds, he survived and was honorably discharged in 1945. He was unable to defend himself against the enemies however, with the help of some American Musketeers, Billy physically survived WW2 in a POW camp.
Eddie was forced to fight in an infantry group that lost many of its soldiers in battle. For six weeks Slovik traveled with a Canadian group of soldiers until reaching an American rifle company. Scared and alone, Eddie refused to fight and offered a letter of desertion to his company commander. Eddie was offered many different alternatives but refused because he felt jail time was better than combat. Private Eddie Slovik was executed on January 31st, 1945 for the military offense of desertion.
Kurt Vonnegut reveals that the fear of death in war times can lead to strength or cowardliness. Billy survives against his odds while Eddie gives up. Billy has inner strength that aids him with the fear of death and the success of survival in a war time situation. Private Eddie Slovik is faced with the same war situation and chooses to face fear as a coward and give up. Billy is aided through his tour of duty with the help of his comrades, Eddie was executed by his comrades with no hesitations. So, what is fear and what are you afraid of: facing your fear the best way you know how or bowing down to it and giving up..."so it goes" Eddie.

Through a Hobo's Eyes

Wezly Barnard

Through a Hobo’s Eyes

Sometimes people find themselves in difficult places in life and feel there is nothing they can do about it. Others believe that their life is just a struggle and feel that they have been hard done by because they don’t have the “good things” in life. What they don’t understand is that they take some things for granted, small things like having food on the table every night, a bath with warm water, and a comfortable bed to sleep in. Vonnegut illustrates a situation in his book Slaughter house 5, how this situation is very different through the eyes of a hobo. Billy Pilgrim finds himself in a situation where nobody wants him around because everybody has a story about him. “Everybody told Billy to get the hell away.” Billy had done something to everybody in their sleep. It was arranged that Billy was put into another car on the train and found himself having “to sleep standing up, or not sleep at all.” In this car Billy met the hobo “and food stopped coming through the ventilator, and the days and nights were colder all the time.” People being in this situation gives people an idea of the life of a hobo. Hoboes go through life not knowing when they will have their next meal, or where they might rest their head for a night’s sleep. The hobo in Vonnegut’s book quotes, “This ain’t bad. I can be comfortable anywhere” helps people understand how hoboes have to adapt to life. Billy being in the car without food and feeling cold was something the hobo does not even think about anymore. The hobo makes the claim to help people understand that he has been through much worse situations. “You think this is bad? This ain’t bad” is repeated as the hobos last words which emphasizes how much the hobo believes that what Billy was going through was not as bad as the life of the hobo and the experiences the hobo has been through.
People, who think that their lives are difficult or they are going through hard times, should take a moment to think about those who don’t have the things in life that they might take for granted. Imagine going through a day or even a week without food and a home to go to. A person might think differently about how hard their life might be.

Salt does the body good

In every novel you read, the author writes what he does for a purpose. This point cannot be understated for Kurt Vonnegut. Throughout his book, SlaughterHouse-5 he refers to something at or near the beginning of the novel and then makes reference to it later. For example, a common thing he says throughout the novel is “so it goes” to down play death and make light of it. One of the things he brings up in the beginning that could easily go unnoticed by readers is when he writes “This one is a failure, and had to be, since it was written by a pillar of salt.” A reader might think, what does a pillar of salt have to do with anything, but if they keep up with context clues a page before, and many pages after, they can figure it out. Vonnegut first references to this “pillar of salt” a paragraph before that quote. The novel is very spastic and at this point he is talking about a point and time in which he was reading a Gideon Bible when something popped out to him. Lot, a character in the Bible is stepping up and doing God’s will and is told not to look back. According to Vonnegut “And Lot’s wife, of course, was told not to look back where all those people and their homes bad been, but she did look back, and I love her for that, because it was so human. So she was turned to a pillar of salt. So it goes” After reading this quote, you realize that Lot was killed because she looked back, and that Vonnegut looks up to a person like her because she stood up for what she believed in and was human; she had the urge to look back and she did, thus he wrote this book about a “pillar of salt”. Later, about halfway through the novel, this “pillar of salt” is referenced again, although indirectly. At this point Billy Pilgrim, a fictional character Vonnegut has written about, has already been abducted by aliens and changed the way he thinks. He now accepts death and does not feel like he can change anything, and he accepts everything. He is put into a situation. Vonnegut writes, “He found two small sources, two lumps an inch apart and hidden in the lining. One was shaped like a pea. The other was shaped like a tiny horseshoe. Billy received a message carried out by the radiations. He was told not to find out what the lumps were. He was advised to be content with knowing they could work miracles for him, provided he did not insist on learning their nature. That was all right with Billy Pilgrim. He was grateful. He was glad.”. He brings this whole point up, because throughout his book he encourages readers they can make a difference and to never give up by showing the quirks of the main character, Billy Pilgrim. Billy encounters 2 lumps that will provide him miracles. Anyone else would be curious as to why they are, and they would most certainly look, but not Billy, he just lets them be and is happy. Vonnegut uses this example and the example of Lot earlier, and writes his entire novel around the idea of “a pillar of salt” to show readers that we should always stay human and continue to be curious about things, because that is a meaningful life, and the minute we stop being human, what is the point of our existence?

answer to number 4

Anna Aycock

answer to question 4

Vonnegut tells us that he thinks it is almost ironic that the people who have actually been through war and experienced it like he has are the ones that hate it the most. He understand that toughness is something that shows courage and the men that have been to war have had to show almost “too much” courage they do not want to put anyone in the places and force them to see what he and other soldiers have seen. I think that he is almost being sarcastic when he says “the kindest and funniest ones,” he is almost picking fun at the men who think war is something that they enjoy and would like to be a soldier. Some little kids think that it would be noble or a great thing to be a soldier but Vonnegut is trying to show people that it is something that you should not make a goal out of. Being a soldier is something that at times may be necessary but in a perfect world it would be easier because there would be no need for war and no one would have to go through the physical and mental hardships that war brings upon soldiers. Vonnegut wants to make sure that no one has to go through the torture that the war has put him through. The people in the military may say that they are tough but it is something that is difficult to deal with after the war and the real toughness they need to find is mental toughness for what they are going to see. He understands and levels with the people who realize that war might be necessary but it is something that people should not enjoy doing or proud of doing. All in all the point that Vonnegut is trying to get across is the people that have been to war would never want to put anyone else in their place because of the mental hardships they have had because of it.

A Candy Bar, Really?

Throughout Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut uses several metaphors to describe objects that remind him of war. For example, when the woman in his office was munching on a Three Musketeers Candy Bar while questioning him about what the “squashed guy looked like when he was squashed.” At first, this statement seems irrelevant and random like the rest of chapter one. However, if one looks at it the way Vonnegut intended it, then the situation enters a completely different perspective. Although death for most people is depressing, for Vonnegut, it is an everyday thing that no one can avoid. After loved ones die, all he can say is so it goes. This makes one think that Vonnegut knows death happens and no one can stop it, so why get depressed over it. Vonnegut almost seems numb when it comes to death, perhaps it is easier for him to almost ignore it seem he had to experience so much during the war. Vonnegut had different opinion on death, during chapter two, the answer to death becomes apparent to Billy. After tralfamadores abduct Billy Pilgrim, he feels that death is nothing to feel and that it is just something that happens. Billy claims that the tralfamadorians see a corpse “that the dead person is in a bad condition in that particular moment.” Death is nothing to fear because it happens to everyone, but for some, it happens to be very horrific. On the other hand, one can also take it has a metaphor for “The Three Musketeers” that Billy encountered during the war. To me, Vonnegut used the women in the office eating the Three Musketeer Candy Bar in two different ways. One way is to show that death does not affect some people, such as that woman from his office, because she continue to munch on her candy bar as she asked for the gruesome details about the squashed man. The other way is foreshadowing the group of people that Billy meets in the war. The Three Musketeers play a major role in keeping Billy alive. Regardless if the Three Musketeer Candy Bar has anything to do with the heroes later in the story or not, somehow I felt the two had a connection.

Michael's Blog

Have you ever been so tired that you find almost anything funny even if it brings pain upon you? Almost as if you were delirious? I know I have and I think Billy feels the same way when Weary “beats the shit” out of him at the end of chapter two. Billy who is just your ordinary “college” kid and has no idea about survival techniques or anything like that is asked to go into the Second World War basically “blind”. He joins three other men behind enemy lines and has to search days for his Calvary. By the end of the chapter Billy has complained so much that it pisses Weary off so he beats him up. I think Billy finds this funny because he is delirious and how Weary is so mad about the situation. Even though Weary’s story claims that they saved Billy even though he wanted to quit but they didn’t want him to give up. In real life Weary gets tired of everything and wants to kill him. Also, I think that Billy realizes that they are about to be found by the enemy and instead of worrying about getting away from the dogs barking and the search party Weary has one thing set on his mind and that is “beating the shit” out of him.

Private Eddie D. Slovik

In Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut mentions Private Eddie D. Slovik. Private Eddie D. Slovik was drafted to war and like many people, did not want to be there. Not all people are “cut out for combat”. Some people are physically not strong enough to be a soldier and then on the other hand, some people are not strong enough mentally to be a soldier. Private Eddie D. Slovik was on his way to France when his platoon assigned and then him and his friend, John Tankey, took cover because of an artillery attack and they became separated from their group. Tankey wrote to their regiment to explain how they were late and everything was okay. The next morning, Private Slovik realized that he “was not cut out for combat” so he decided to write a letter to Captain Ralph Grotte and tell him he was too scared to be in the rifle company and was asked to be reassigned. When the Captain said no, the next day Slovik was gone. When he approached an enlisted cook after walking several miles, he gave the cook his note. After Slovik refused to rip up the note, he was brought before the Lieutenant Colonel and when he still refused, he was forced to write he understands the consequences of deliberately incriminating himself and he would get a court martial. The execution was by a firing squad and he claimed it was not because of him deserting his country, it was because he stole a piece of bread when he was 12.
Private Eddie D. Slovik was mentioned in Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughter-House- Five because Vonnegut was trying to make a point that not all people are strong enough to be a soldier. Private Slovik ran away because he was not strong enough and he was scared. Vonnegut was making a point that people have to go to war no matter how they feel about the war. They can completely dispise the fact that there is war and they still have to go.

Matthew Peeler's Blog

When we typically think about toughness, we tend to picture someone big and bad that can take anybody. A prime example of someone who is tough in my opinion is Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is big, he is bad, and he can take anybody.
Kurt Vonnegut however takes a different approach to toughness in my opinion. He states that, ”World War Two had certainly made everybody very tough.” Vonnegut proceeds to tell about his boss at General Electric where he works as a public relations man. He says that his boss was one of the toughest men he had ever met and he often gave Vonnegut sneering remarks asking him why he hadn’t become an officer, “as though I’d done something wrong,” Vonnegut states. This line is what makes me think that Vonnegut views toughness as something that is not necessarily a good thing. It seems that his attitude towards his “tough” boss is an attitude that despises toughness. Vonnegut did nothing wrong in his eyes and doesn’t seem to understand why his boss should view himself as tough. Vonnegut states that he and his wife were “scrawny” people and that many of their friends were people of the same stature. It was these people that Vonnegut seemed to have the most respect for and enjoyed being around the most. He said that they were the kindest and funniest people. According to him they were the people who really hated the war, the ones that had really fought. When I tie this line into the line about Vonnegut’s boss poking at him for not being an officer, it comes across to me that Vonnegut views being tough as being nothing. He believes that his boss, as an officer, did not go through the trials and tribulations that he and his fellow fighters did. According to Vonnegut, being highly ranked is not what makes you tough. It is the grueling grind of fighting in war that makes you tough and that if you have not been in a war situation then it is much more difficult to call yourself tough.

Vonnegut-Response to Question 3-Three Musketeer Bar?

Vonnegut has an exceptionally unique writing style throughout Slaughter House- Five. One aspect of his writing style and the effect he has on the readers is the way he mentions random details could easily go unnoticed, but, many times instead it will make the reader inquisitive. An example of this is on page 12, where Vonnegut notes the woman reporter eating a Three Musketeer Bar while talking about the death man that squashed by the car and elevator. After Vonnegut gives her the report it says that the woman reporter ask, “Did it bother you?” after he gives her details of what the squashed guy looked like. At the same time all this is she is also eating a Three Musketeer Bar. I have more than one opinion of why Vonnegut chose to mention the same woman was also eating the Three Musketeer Bar. I am not stating they are precisely the intention Vonnegut had, but is possible ways in which a reader could have interpreted the additional detail.

Previously, on page 11, Vonnegut describes how tough the reporters were that had taken the jobs of men that went to war. He also describes the women writer he spoke to as "beastly". Having this description before she asks the question suggests that the war made the writers tougher by experiencing harsher situations. Further, when Vonnegut notes she is casually eating a candy bar while discussing someone’s tragic death demonstrates her lack of concern and how the misfortune does not seem to have any distress on her at all. The fact that she asks the question, “Did it bother you?” shows how she is oblivious to the reality of devastation and disgust Vonnegut had already witnessed in the war and Dresden. I believe Vonnegut added the comment about her eating her Three Musketeer Bar in there to also show that commonly people could care less and not be bothered with death unless it directly influences their life. She is able to sit there and eat her chocolate while others, like Vonnegut are in the world experiencing death with his own eyes and memories. Death has a greater impression on those who have personally witnessed it.

Vonnegut Blog 1

Dear All,

Below are 14 questions!  I'd like to have no more than two people per question.  Therefore, please lay claim to your question by commenting on THIS blog.  You should write something like "I, Jennifer Hughes, hereby claim question 14."  Then, go compose your thought-provoking, insightful blog!  (PS -- I'd like to lay some major kudos down for people who are tearing along in the book... y'all rock!)

1. The New York Times said of Vonnegut that he was “Our finest black humorist… We laugh in self defense.” Explain what the NYT meant by that statement.


2. On page 10, Vonnegut talks about what he learned in college, and why he doesn’t have villains in his novel. What do you think this passage (and the novel) says about college?

3. Why, do you think, on page 12, that Vonnegut makes note of the fact that the woman reporter was eating a Three Musketeer Bar while talking with him about the elevator man’s death.

4. Looking at page 13, what does Vonnegut think about toughness? Who are the “kindest and funniest people” according to him, and why?

5. On page 14, Vonnegut includes lines from his two limericks after writing “Eheu, fugaces labuntur anni.” What does that mean, who said it originally, and why does Vonnegut quote it here? (Google it!)

6. Vonnegut includes a poem from a Theodore Roethke book, Words for the Wind (26). How does this poem fit in with the books themes?

7. Why does Vonnegut say, at the end of chapter 1, that this book was written by a pillar of salt? Why is that meaningful?

8. Look up Private Eddie D. Slovik. Wikipedia’s fine. Why do you think Vonnegut talks about him in this novel?

9. At the end of chapter 2, Weary starts to “beat the shit” out of Billy, and Billy “makes sounds that were a lot like laughter.” What do you think they were? Was it laughter? Why or why not?

10. Why do you think that Vonnegut has an “Impeach Earl Warren” bumper sticker? Who is Warren, and what does this say or not say about Billy that he has the sticker on his car?

11. What do you think the black man in the ghetto wanted to talk with Billy about? (75)

12. Why, on page 86, does Vonnegut interrupt the story of Billy Pilgrim to say “I was there.”

13. How do you think we are supposed to understand the Hobo’s persistent claim that he’s “been in worse places than this… this ain’t so bad” (87, and other places!)?

14. At the end of chapter 3, Vonnegut lets us see the boxcars of soldiers through two different perspectives. One is from German soldiers, and one is from inside the cars. What effect do these perspectives have on readers, potentially?