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.

Ch.7 (entry #1)

In chapter seven Vonnegut uses the syrup, that all the workers spoon, to create a happy and gratifying mood. When Billy spoons for the first time "every cell in his body shook him with ravenous gratitude and applause" (Vonnegut 160). Billy then sees Edgar Derby looking at him through the window wanting some of the syrup so "he stuck the lollipop into poor old Derby's mouth. A moment passed, and then Derby burst into tears" (Vonnegut 161).  So it is pretty obvious that this syrup is probably the best  thing that Billy and Derby have had in a long time based on the mood that Vonnegut creates using the syrup.

Ch. 6 (entry #2)

One thing that Vonnegut is very good at doing is infusing real life situations into his book, so that the audience can relate to the story.  Many people I am sure have woken up and have no idea where you are or how you got to the place that you are in.  We may even mistake item in our surroundings as something totally different than what they actually are.  This happens to Billy Pilgrim after he wakes up back in WWII, in the hospital.  "He had no idea what year it was or the planet he was on.  Whatever the planet's name was, it was cold." (Vonnegut 136)  The reason Vonnegut is such a fantastic writer is because he is such a down to earth style writer, and makes the reader seem like they are in the story.

Ch. 6 (entry #1)

"It's the sweetest thing there is," of course Paul Lazzaro is talking about the only thing he seem to care about, and that is revenge.  Paul Lazzaro is definitely a flat character, because the only thing he talks or cares about is revenge. Lazzaro is a very one dimensional character who is cruel and vengeful, "'People f*** with me, and Jesus Christ are they ever f***ing sorry. I laugh like hell. I don't care if it's a guy or a damn. If the President of the United States f***ed around with me, I'd fix him good." (Vonnegut (138-139).  Lazzaro also tells Billy and Edgar Derby that he once killed a dog using a very painful method just because the dog bit him! If that is not cruel then I don't know what is.  Lazzaro also told Billy that he was going to kill him after the war because he vowed so after Roland Weary died. Lazzaro barely knew Weary I think he just wants to act like he did just so that he can use it as an excuse to sate his need for revenge and violence.

Ch. 5 (entry #2)

As I read this chapter Billy's account of the war camp he was in clearly reminded me of a movie I saw on T.V. the other day. The movie was called "Hart's War."  Hart's war is about a corporal who gets captured by the Germans along with the rest of his platoon. As the corporal enters the he sees the same site as Billy Pilgrim, starve faced Russians. Now I'm just taking a guess here, but it seems to me that the German's treat the American prisoners a lot better than the Russian prisoners. I don't know why the German act the way they do towards the Russians, maybe its a race thing.  Later as the Corporal goes further into the camp he meets a group of Americans very similar to the group of British men that Billy Pilgrim meet. The group of Americans have very good living quarters, and they also put on plays. The plays were very similar to the Cinderella play that the British officers put on for the American soldiers.  The British officers at some point during their time as prisoners tried to escape a camp that they were in, and like the British officers the American men in "Hart's War" also tried to escape, and unlike the British soldiers the American's succeeded.

Ch. 5 (entry #1)

By being the longest chapter, I thought chapter five was going to be chalked full of literary terms.  However; no matter how long I searched for one, I could not seem to find one literary term.  So I just decided to keep looking, and it turns out a literary term was staring me right in the face, as I read on of Edgar Derby's lines, "'We had forgotten that wars were fought by babies. When I saw those freshly-shaved faces, it was a shock. 'My God, My God,' I said to myself, 'It's the Children's Crusade" (Vonnegut 106).  I believe that this quote is an example of allusion in Vonnegut's writing. By making this allusion Vonnegut compares The Children's Crusade to WWII, which in hindsight makes perfect sense. The children in The Children's Crusade were only 8-12, and by no means should they be sent out to fight a war.  Now the idea of sending kids to embark on a crusade to the holy land would sound preposterous to anybody nowadays, but yet we still send our own children fight in wars today. In WWII the US sent in 18-25 year old boys off the fight the Axis forces.  To most people in the World those boys were still children.  They had barely just left home and graduated from college, and were already getting shipped off to battle. Yet the government still sends young men into battle, who are still children in the eyes of their elders.

Ch. 4 (entry #2)

Reading a piece in this chapter reminded me about an episode of South Park I was watching the other day.  In the episode Jimmy came up with a joke that everyone thought was hilarious, the fish sticks joke.  Then Cartman told everyone that he came up with the joke so that he would become famous. However; in reality Cartman was only in the same room with Jimmy when Jimmy made the joke.  In this chapter Roland Weary told the soldiers in his box car that the thing that killed him was Billy Pilgrim.  When in reality the thing that killed Weary was his own actions.  The only reason that Weary was captured by the Germans was because he decided to beat up Billy rather than hide from the encroaching German patrol. Now Lazzaro is looking for Billy to make him pay for getting Weary killed. So like Cartman, Roland lied for his own personal gain.   

Jimmy(front) Cartman(back)

Ch. 4 (entry # 1)

The use of motifs is definitely to be a strong point in Vonnegut's writing.  From the first chapter to now Vonnegut has used the following motifs: so it goes, blue and ivory, and mustard gas and roses. All three motifs really give and image of what Vonnegut wants us to see, such as "Billy Pilgrim was lying at an angle on the corner-brace, self crucified, holding himself there with a blue and ivory claw hooked over the sill of the ventilator." (Vonnegut 80) or " There was a drunk on the other end. Billy could almost smell his breath-mustard gas and roses." (Vonnegut 73) I especially like those two motifs because the just sort of make the image pop when I read them.

Ch. 3 (entry #2)

Vonnegut said in chapter one that he does not glorify war.  As that statement continues to show itself throughout SH 5, the audience can see very clearly that war is, in one word, awful. Even though serving ones country is a very honorable thing to do, it does not make war anymore glamorous. In the final paragraphs of chapter four the audience sees the conditions that the American POWs had to live in. The Germans loaded up the American POWs into train cars, and "in went water and loaves of black bread and sausage and cheese, and out came shit and piss and language." Now I don't know about the rest of the population of America, but reading this doesn't exactly encourage me to put on an American uniform and go to war. However; making his readers choose not to go to war is one of Vonnegut's objectives.  Reading this chapter also made me see how sheltered the American society has become.  Most American citizens including myself have life so good that we have turned a blind eye to the how bad the world can actually be. However; that is not the case for some people in our country.  The people that live on the streets, the homeless and the poor, know all to well the hardships that society can bring.  The hobo that was riding in the same car a Billy is a perfect example of this. To the hobo " this ain't that bad... this ain't nothing at all." To the rest of the soldiers it was probably one of the worst experiences of their lives, but that just proves my point about Americans are living sheltered lives.  

Ch. 3 (entry #1)

One literary device that Vonnegut uses frequently in this chapter is indirect characterization. Vonnegut does a perfect job of telling us about a character without coming out and saying exactly what they are like.  Vonnegut uses objects and events to tell us about some of his characters.  One character Vonnegut describes using indirect characterization is corporal who captured Roland and Billy. Vonnegut says that the corporal "had been wounded four times-and patched up, and sent back to war." From that I inferred that this man was a tough and courageous soldier, who would die for his country. The corporal also had golden cavalry boots which "were almost all he owned in the world. They were his home." From that we can infer that the corporal was not very a wealthy man, or that he took so much pride in his boots that they were the only thing in the world he cared about. 

Ch. 2 (entry #2)

Unity, Brotherhood, Camaraderie

 Just a few of the words that are represented by the actions of the of the United States armed forces, or at least should be represented. A soldier is taught to survive combat, as well as; help his fellow soldiers survive as well.  As I read the final pages of chapter two I did not see unity present as it should be between soldiers.  The two scouts deserted their fellow soldiers, when they should have helped Billy and stopped Roland.  Another lack of unity I read on the in chapter two was when Roland was beating up Billy and the way Roland treated Billy.  Soldiers are supposed to look after and help each other not beat each other up.  SH 5 depicts Roland Weary having a "helmet, helmet liner, wool cap, scarf, gloves, cotton undershirt, woolen undershirt, wool shirt, sweater, blouse, jacket, overcoat, cotton underpants, woolen underpants, woolen trousers, cotton socks, woolen socks, combat boots..." and he didn't give even one of those items to Billy, who wasn't even equipped for the weather. Camaraderie is what keeps soldiers together while in combat, and without it everything falls apart. If the scouts, Billy, and Roland would have worked  together, all four would still be together, and Roland and Billy would not have been captured by the Germans.

Ch.2 (entry #1)

In the second chapter of SH 5 Vonnegut introduces a very typical kind of character. This character is none other than Roland Weary. We learn a lot about Roland's personality and character quality in this chapter because of Vonnegut's use of characterization. Weary "was only eighteen, was at the end of an unhappy childhood spent mostly in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania...he was stupid, fat, and mean."  Roland was not a popular child when he was growing up in Pennsylvania.  He was so unpopular that Roland was frequently ditched by other children. Roland hated being ditched more than anything. Getting ditched more than likely lowered Roland's self esteem. Vonnegut tells us that Roland would often find someone less popular than himself, and take out his frustration on that person by teasing or beating them up. The reason I call Roland a typical character is because he is the bully. Roland is the average high school bully who harasses others because of  suppressed memories he himself has not yet gotten over. We also learn that Roland enjoys torture and death very much, so much that it is almost all he talks about. I believe that Vonnegut is using indirect characterization to show the audience that Roland has a sort of dark and twisted personality.

Ch.1 (entry #2)

Throughout the first chapter Vonnegut says that he forgets many details and stories from his time as a "resident" of Slaughter House Five.  Now I may just be spit balling here, but I think that Vonnegut would have wanted and tried to forget those awful events he witnessed.  Which if I am correct, and not just rambling on about nothing, is quite ironic considering that he desperately wants to remember the event he doesn't want in his mind.  This situation is similar to how people shut out memories and emotions that evoke unwanted thoughts or feelings. One memory that I have that I would like to get out of my mind was the time when someone broke into my friends house, when only me and my friend were home. I can honestly say that I have never been so scared in my entire life. I would love to forget that memory just how Vonnegut forgot some of his time in the Slaughter House.  I don't know how you can forget memories as a war prisoner, but I am going to go with my gut feeling that he wanted to forget.

Ch.1 (entry #1)

"The irony is so great.  A whole city gets burned down and thousands and thousands of people are killed.  And this American foot soldier is arrested in the ruins for taking a teapot. And he is given a regular trial, and then he's shot by a firing squad" (Vonnegut 4).  Kurt Vonnegut was talking to his friend Bernard V. O'Hare, and Vonnegut was thinking of using the execution of Edgar Derby for taking a teapot.  Vonnegut is correct that there is irony  in that after thousands of people were killed, a man was shot for taking a teapot. However the quote above is an example of situational irony. There is situational irony in the fact that the death of one man would be the climax, and the bombing/deaths of thousands of people would not be. It really just doesn't make sense if you think about.  It would be expected that the bombing of the citizens of Dresden would be the climax, but Vonnegut was serious about making the climax about the death of one man. I believe that Vonnegut did include this tid bit of information from his life as a source of comedy to make the readers laugh. I can personally say that this quote made me laugh after I reread it a few times.