Assumptions

Wezly Barnard

“Assumptions are things you don’t know you are making.” Douglas Adams, in his book Last Chance to see illustrates how making assumptions can be very disorientating. In the chapter Blind Panic, Adams uses a humorous technique to describe how certain things work differently in other countries, “the first time you take the plug out of a wash basin in Australia and see the water sprawling down the hole the other way round.” People who witness this for the first time would probably find it strange as it is something they are not used to. When a person sees something that is out of the norm, it tends to give a feeling that they are out of their comfort zone. “The very laws of physics are telling you how far you are from home.” Another example that Adams uses is how “in New Zealand even the telephone dials are numbered anticlockwise.” This will make it very difficult for people who are not from New Zealand to make a phone call. People are used to doing things in a way they are familiar with and almost feel lost when the same thing is done in a different way. “The shock is that it had never occurred to you that there was any other way of doing it.” It may even become humorous as it could feel like it’s the first time they are doing it even though in the past they have made many phone calls.“This has nothing to do with the law of physics – they just do it differently” It is interesting that the very same situation is done in a different way all over the world and things are not the way you expect it to be. “The ground slips” is a humorous way of describing being disorientated. Adams uses these words to create a feeling of being off balance. This is finding it difficult to stand which relates to how a person might feel when facing something different. “Try and do it quickly and you will inevitably misdial because your automatic habit jumps in and takes over before you have a chance to stop it.” The trip to China is going to be very different for Adams as all these assumptions will develop. In China most of what they do is different to what Adams is used to. “I had a kind of inkling that this would be the case from what little I knew of other people’s experiences in China.” Adams, through his words, gives the reader a feeling of what it might be like in a different country and what experiences a person could encounter.

Matthew Peeler's Blog

Extreme conservationists are truly a different breed of people. This however is not a bad thing as it takes a different kind of person to put in the effort required to be successful in their efforts. I personally consider myself a conservationist as every time I enter into the outdoors, I try to leave it better than I found it in some way; not just for a particular animal but for all animals. Whether it is simply picking up a small piece of trash or doing a major habitat improvement project, conservation efforts are conservation efforts. In the last chapter of his book, Last Chance to See, Douglas Adams talks about a pair of conservationists they meet on the Island of Mauritius by the names of Carl Jones and Richard Lewis. Adams proceeds to describe the “obsessive passion” that they have for the conservation of birds on the island. In my opinion, this passage has a strong effect on the reader from the standpoint of understanding what conservation is really all about. Like I mentioned earlier, conservationists are a different type of person and to an individual who is not familiar with conservation, a conservationist may seem a little crazy in the head. The passage on page 183 however sheds things into a different light. It explains how hard Carl and Richard had worked to try to help the birds in their area. The text sums their hard work ethic into one sentence by stating,

“They loved them with an extraordinary fervour, and had devoted their entire adult lives to working in the field, often in awful conditions and on horribly low budgets, to save rare birds, and the environments they live in, from extinction.”

This excerpt from the text puts what a true conservationist is into perspective. With this passage, the reader is able to understand the hard work that goes into conservation. It can be debated why Douglas put this passage into the book but I believe it is to prevent the reader from thinking conservationists are lunatics. On pages 179-182, when the reader is first introduced to Richard and Carl, it appears that these two individuals are simply crazy. One if the first conversations that takes place is about why Adams wants to stay for only two days and then fly to then island of Rodrigues to look for a rare fruit bat for ten days. Richard pesters him into staying by bugging and bugging him to stay there for ten days and opposed to going to Rodrigues for ten days. Adams finally gives in when Richard comes close to taking out another car while driving down the road due to the fact he was so adamant about Adams staying that he was not even paying attention to the road. Like I said, this simply appears crazy but with a further, more humanized explanation later in the text, the reader realizes that these conservationists are not really crazy but they are passionate about what they do, just like all conservationists.

Week 8 Blog: Douglas Adams

Dear All,

Below are four questions about Douglas Adams's Last Chance to See.  Please select one and answer it with a coherent, grammatical response of 300-600 words.

1. At the chapter "Blind Panic," Adams reminds us that "[a]ssumptions are the things you don't know you're making." This is a chapter about coping with disorientation, of having your assumptions challenged, of learning to realize that different assumptions could be at play. Choose a section of this chapter and discuss how humor is a way of coping with this sense of confusion.


2. Adams employs a literary humor technique called "the laughing return." In laughing returns, the author makes reference to something that he joked about in another part of the text, either reintroducing the joke or twisting how we laugh at it when we see it again. Find an example of a laughing return in the book and discuss how the humor evolves through its repetition.

3. On page 183, Adams describes the obsessive passion of the conservationists of Mauritius in the terms of war. What is the potential effect on the reader? Why does Adams do this?

4. Douglas Adams, for final words, expresses a concern not for the rare and endangered animals he has been seeking, but for "us." What, after finishing this book, does Adams think is endangered about human beings?

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.