Ch. 10 (entry #2)

Poo-tee-weet?

When I first read "Poo-tee-weet?" I had no idea what in the heck it meant. However; as I read the end of SH 5 the meaning of the phrase dawned on me. The meaning was so simple it was hard for me to believe that I didn't catch it the first time I read it, I actually laughed about it for awhile. What I took away from poo-tee-weet is that death, war, time, you name it never has to happen for a reason or have meaning to it, but it just happens. I believe that is also why Vonnegut used the Tralfamadorians in SH 5 to show that we as people are always looking for an explanation for something, and focus on the bad things in life that we forget to just take a step back, and look at all the wonders in life.  Not everything in life has a logical reason behind it, it just is what it is.

Ch.10 (entry #1)

Onomatopoeia! Onomatopoeia is the use of words whose sounds echo their meaning. The onomatopoeia used in this chapter is "Poo-tee-weet?" (Vonnegut 215).  One would ask what is the meaning of that phrase, and I would tell them nothing, absolutely nothing. Now here is why that they have no meaning, Vonnegut through those three words is telling us that a massacre sometimes has no reason behind it and it just happens. I loved the way the book ended, and no I see why this is an anti-war novel.

Ch.9 (entry #2)

So which is worse, Dresden of Hiroshima?  We hear so much about the bombing of Hiroshima because it ended the war, and was the first nuclear bombing in history. I've heard stories about the bombing of Hiroshima a bunch of time, but I have never once heard about the firebombing of Dresden, Germany until I read SH 5.  People say that bombing Hiroshima was cruel and unjust for it was full of innocent people, but isn't it the same concept with Dresden. "I deeply regret that British and U.S. bombers killed 135,000 people in the attack on Dresden...The atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed 71,379 people" (Vonnegut 187-188). So why do we hear more about Hiroshima than Dresden when we learn about WWII?

Ch.9 (entry #1)

The character of Valencia Pilgrim is best described as static. Throughout SH 5 we only really see one part of Valencia, and that is her undying love for her husband Billy. A static character does not change much over the course of a story, and Valencia does not change but loves and cares for Billy always. Whenever Valencia comes into the story she always expresses her love for Billy in one way or another because "Valencia adored Billy" (Vonnegut 182). However; Billy does not show much affection at all for his wife as she does for him.

Ch. 8 (entry #2)

As I mentioned in my first blog about chapter seven, betrayal of ones country is an awful thing.  Campbell siding with the Nazi's reminded me of the movie "Brave Heart."  Near the end of the movie William Wallace is leading Scots in a battle against their English oppressors.  Robert the Bruce, heir to the throne of Scotland is supposed to play a key role in the Scots battle plan against the English, but when the time for Robert to come to the Scot's aid he is no where to be found.  Later after the battle is lost for the Scots Wallace is still fighting with one soldier, and when he rips off the soldiers helmet it turns out to be Robert the Bruce. Whenever I think of betrayal I think of that scene of "Brave Heart" and the look of shock on the face of William Wallace.  I imagine that the American POW's especially Edgar Derby were feeling very betrayed at the fact that one of their own countrymen betrayed them to join the enemy.   

Ch.8 (entry #1)

"Howard W. Campbell, Jr., an American who had become a Nazi" (Vonnegut 162) is probably the most ironic situation that has been introduced thus far in SH 5. I would say that this is situational irony because anyone during world war two would expect an American to believe in democracy and stop oppression, however Mr. Campbell is just the opposite. It's just not right... any American who was a Nazi in WWII or even now, in my opinion betrayed their country.

Ch.7 (entry #2)

Not much really stuck out to me in this chapter, other than if Billy keeps going into the past why doesn't he change anything.  Billy could have warned the pilot of the crash that was about to occur. Billy could have warned "the three musketeers" about the approaching Germans, and Billy would have never been captured. This reminds me of the movie "Back to the Future" except Billy doesn't try to change anything, but Marty McFly does. Billy not trying to change anything also leads me to believe that he isn't actually traveling in time, but dreaming and having flashbacks of past memories.