Chapters 16-20 continue Candide and Cacambo's story after having killed the Reverend. I find that Candide acts too rashly, despite the fact that he ia a very educated being. He doesn't take time to think about his actions and ends up in really tough situations, where he's being chased for murdering a Reverend and an Inquisitor. Maybe Voltaire is criticizing society for not thinking before they act, for being too naïve and for acting too rashly instead of taking time to think on what can be made the best decision. I also noticed that he is being chased mainly for killing two high figures in the Church, and in governance. What of the third man? Is he not important at all? Voltaire is continuing his attacks on the Church by showing their power, but power in what? Is it their political power that Voltaire dislikes?
Candide used to constantly question Pangloss's idea of cause and effect and "everything happens for a reason. But when he kills the two men, instead of comforting himself by saying there's a reasomn for this, he cries and weeps and asks why do bad things happen to good people like him. Everyone makes mistakes, but I just think that Candide is too rash and stupid. Without Cacambo, the old woman or Pangloss, he would be completely lost and he would have no idea what to do. When they are attacked by the Oreillons and are about to be roasted and eaten by them, this is when Candide starts to focus on how beatiful life is and that the Oreillons must carry out their way of life. "Ah! What would Pangloss say if he were here to see how pure nature is formed?" (Voltaire) Pure? You're about to be eaten by people! He chooses the worst moments to praise how beatiful life is and to think about the wonders of cause and effect. And when the real cause and effect of the story happens, being it that he killed the Jesuit so he doesn't get eaten by the Oreillons for killing their enemy, here, he doesn't notice the cause and effect.
There something I found very interesting in chapter 16. This is when the two girls are being chased by the monkeys, Candide shoots them and Cacambo explains that those were the two ladies' lovers. Cacambo explains that "they [the monkeys] are the fourth part of a man as I am the Fourth part of a Spaniard." (Voltaire) Voltaire is saying that man and monkeys are related species, even though Darwin came much after him. Maybe Voltaire had the same beliefs and denied religion (if not wholely to a certain point), but he never published his ideas on it. I just found this very interesting.
Voltaire continues to show how great Europe is, but I think he is really trying to show that Western society needs to change, being that it is corrupt, power hungry, and is impulsively driven. Sure he shows good things about Europe. "You see this hemisphere is not better than the other." (Voltaire) Better in what ways? He fails to explain why though. I also found it kind of funny when Cacambo talks about the French. "...Frenchmen, for you know these gentry ramble all over the world." (Voltaire). Being that Voltaire himslef is French, why does he mention this? Perhaps he is trying to show a good image of France, showing that they have lots of power? Or is he trying to attack his country's dependance on "imperialism"?
Voltaire shows the corruptness of the Old World by showing us a type of utopia in South America, a fantastical, non-reachable place known as El Dorado. When Candide and Cacambo stumble in here, they are very surprised, given the fact that they see school children playing with precious stones, gold, rubies and emeralds, as if they were regular playtoys. This "perfect" society does not care for riches, they don't care for having more power than the other. Sure, they have a King, but he acts not like royalty, but rather as a part of the people, showing them they are all equal. They don't want to compete with neighboring societies, they just want to live their own life peacefully. Voltaire is showing how Europeans are corrupt, laden with the necessity of being better than each other and not seeing the true meaning of life. The European Man has been corrupted by power. The King of El Dorado mentions that their inaccesibility has "hitherto secured us from the rapacious fury of the people of Europe, ...fondness for the pebbles of our land...sake of which they would murder us all."(Voltaire) Europeans don't care about anybody, they just want their own well-being. Voltaire might be asking here for a change in European society, to have them look at how they really are. Take the Dutch captain at Surinam for example, he saw Candide was willing to pay lots of money, so he took as much as he could and ran away. Why is man reluctant to help one another? Is he so center-driven?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
A Gilded Society (Candide 10-15)
During chapters 10 to 15, Candide, Cunegund and the Old woman escape to Cadiz, where they find passage on a ship headed to the New World, to the city of Buenos Ayres. On this trip is where the old woman begins to tell her story, to prove to Cunegund her life was harder. During this story, I find that Voltaire is making fun of the Church, mocking its power and hypocrisy. The Christian Church is supposed to be strict at following their own rules, they're peaceful and generous an whatnot. Something that I found quite funny was the fact that the Old woman mentioned she was the daughter of Pope Urban X. It shows that the Church doesn't follow its own principles and rules, concerning those of celibacy. Popes, despite being bound by rules of celibacy, have children. Also, when the old woman is describing when she ran off with her mother, she uses the words "...gilded, like the high altar of St. Peter's ..."(Voltaire). Its interesting that Voltaire would use these words, because it shows that the Church is something different to what it seems to be. Does Voltaire see the Church as a corrupt entity? Does he view it as something that doesn;t care about others but will do anything to be in control and power? "...Our men...like true Pope's soldiers..." (Voltaire). Pope's soldiers? I thought the Church was supposed to be peaceful and meant to protect others, even your enemy? Perhaps Voltaire is pointing out something that he views as a hypocrisy. There's also another line which uses the phrase "Christian governments" (Voltaire). Here he shows how Christians control everything and what they really want is power and to control. Still, it's not only in the case of the Christian Church. The old woman was taken throughout Africa, especially North Africa, a region of predominant Muslim faith. Even though, she, her mother and bridesmaids were treated horribly by their masters, these never stopped praying for their faith. I find it funny how Voltaire makes it implicit in the text that he mocks religious organizations.
Candide and Cunegund have a very similar history to the old woman. All of them lost their wealthy and high-style life because of foreign attacks made on them. They practically lost everything when their families and homes were attacked by others, they were forced to be slaves and they were treated horribly, Cunegund and the old woman by horrible masters and Candide by the Bulgarian army while being trained there. Still, Cunegund's fortunes change after being preferred by the governor of Buenos Ayres. Is there some meaning as to why she was the one who was chosen to move on with her life? Does Voltaire give her success over the other two because one wasn't royal blood and the other was "Christian" blood? I also find it interesting that both the old woman and Candide are forced to leave their normal lives and after some time in their new life the reunite with their masters, Pangloss and the italian guy who used to take care of the woman. Still, she was betrayed by him whereas Candide always lived by Pangloss's ideas.
Throughout this novel, one can see how the society of the time was reflected in the story. He shows how the Church officials have power, for example the portuguese Grand Inquisitor and the Jesuit Reverend of Paraguay (Cunegund's brother). He also seems to show how Europe was a higher society than others, how it was a more organized and civilized culture, except for the Bulgarians, who are shown as Barbarians. Africans described in the old woman's story are animals and barbarians who don't know how to act, they kill at will, they rape and they still treat slaves horribly. Indians in South American colonies are also shown as a lower kind. Locals are shown eating "coarse corn out of wooden dishes in the open air," while"the Reverend Father Commandant retired to his cool arbor." Eurpoeans, though being in a different land, still act as if they are meant to be there and civilize cultures there. Cities were designed by them but still Europeans see themselves as better. In one line, Cacambo mentions someone "who kills Spaniards in America and send them to heaven at Madrid." They see their own society as divine and perfect. Maybe Voltaire is also somehow tryinig to show negative points in Europe. Even though they are civilized, they still conquer others, they think too much of themselves, and they depend on the Church too much.
Candide and Cunegund have a very similar history to the old woman. All of them lost their wealthy and high-style life because of foreign attacks made on them. They practically lost everything when their families and homes were attacked by others, they were forced to be slaves and they were treated horribly, Cunegund and the old woman by horrible masters and Candide by the Bulgarian army while being trained there. Still, Cunegund's fortunes change after being preferred by the governor of Buenos Ayres. Is there some meaning as to why she was the one who was chosen to move on with her life? Does Voltaire give her success over the other two because one wasn't royal blood and the other was "Christian" blood? I also find it interesting that both the old woman and Candide are forced to leave their normal lives and after some time in their new life the reunite with their masters, Pangloss and the italian guy who used to take care of the woman. Still, she was betrayed by him whereas Candide always lived by Pangloss's ideas.
Throughout this novel, one can see how the society of the time was reflected in the story. He shows how the Church officials have power, for example the portuguese Grand Inquisitor and the Jesuit Reverend of Paraguay (Cunegund's brother). He also seems to show how Europe was a higher society than others, how it was a more organized and civilized culture, except for the Bulgarians, who are shown as Barbarians. Africans described in the old woman's story are animals and barbarians who don't know how to act, they kill at will, they rape and they still treat slaves horribly. Indians in South American colonies are also shown as a lower kind. Locals are shown eating "coarse corn out of wooden dishes in the open air," while"the Reverend Father Commandant retired to his cool arbor." Eurpoeans, though being in a different land, still act as if they are meant to be there and civilize cultures there. Cities were designed by them but still Europeans see themselves as better. In one line, Cacambo mentions someone "who kills Spaniards in America and send them to heaven at Madrid." They see their own society as divine and perfect. Maybe Voltaire is also somehow tryinig to show negative points in Europe. Even though they are civilized, they still conquer others, they think too much of themselves, and they depend on the Church too much.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
What is Real? Our beliefs or Something Else? (Candide 4-9)
I find that Voltaire's Candide is a hard novel to read. The reason for this is that Voltaire doesn't write like most authors, but he writes in a way that is straight to the point, without going to much into details, and it seems more of a summary at times. The chronological order is really hard to follow, except for when Cunegund mentions she's been nine months as a servant of Portuguese Inquisitor. At times it's hard to follow becauseof he way it's written, but with a few re-reads, it all comes together and it's much easier to understand.
I find it ironic that Candide was kicked out of the castle for kissing Cunegund, and he was "kidnapped" by Barbarians (they eventually went easy on him), and after he was free in Holland, the Barbarians looted the castle in Westphalia, where everyone was killed save Cunegund and Pangloss. Candide always seems to be saved by somebody who will eventually die or be killed. For example, the Anabaptist who helped Candide took both him and Pangloss in, he gave them a house, a job and shelter, but when they were going to Portugal in his boat, everyone drowned in a storm except Pangloss, Candide, and a sailor. Why is Candide always the one who gets the lesser of two evils? When they punished by the Inquisitor in Portugal, why did Pangloss get to be hanged and why did Candide only get flogged? Was it perhaps they knew Pangloss was a philosopher and his ideas went against the Church, while Candide was only an apprentice. Is this another way of Voltaire showing the horrors of the church, by burning philosophers or thinkers that have different ideas? Perhaps he was showing that there are other ways of learning, since he himself was a philosopher. Perhaps this was one of the reasons why Voltaire wrote this novel, other reasons perhaps beign showing the ignorance of the common man, and how philosophers are the new thinkers of the world. Still, Candide's optimism and ignorance might show that not every philosopher is right and that people should not believe everything they hear.
I think that Candide might be getting confused as to what to believe. Yes, he is rescued by an old woman after being flogged by the Grand Inquisitor, and yes, he was able to see Cunegund again because what happened happened. Still, he begins to doubt that everything happens for a reason because his mentor was hanged and because he was forced to kill both a Jew and the Grand Inquisitor. He also doesn't understand why the looting and taking of the castle happened. He starts to doubt the teachings of his mentor. Maybe Candide will finally "wake up" from his ignorance, maybe he will discover finally about the new world and leave his happiness from being safe in the castle completely behind, but discover a new world with his new lover Cunegund.
I find it ironic that Candide was kicked out of the castle for kissing Cunegund, and he was "kidnapped" by Barbarians (they eventually went easy on him), and after he was free in Holland, the Barbarians looted the castle in Westphalia, where everyone was killed save Cunegund and Pangloss. Candide always seems to be saved by somebody who will eventually die or be killed. For example, the Anabaptist who helped Candide took both him and Pangloss in, he gave them a house, a job and shelter, but when they were going to Portugal in his boat, everyone drowned in a storm except Pangloss, Candide, and a sailor. Why is Candide always the one who gets the lesser of two evils? When they punished by the Inquisitor in Portugal, why did Pangloss get to be hanged and why did Candide only get flogged? Was it perhaps they knew Pangloss was a philosopher and his ideas went against the Church, while Candide was only an apprentice. Is this another way of Voltaire showing the horrors of the church, by burning philosophers or thinkers that have different ideas? Perhaps he was showing that there are other ways of learning, since he himself was a philosopher. Perhaps this was one of the reasons why Voltaire wrote this novel, other reasons perhaps beign showing the ignorance of the common man, and how philosophers are the new thinkers of the world. Still, Candide's optimism and ignorance might show that not every philosopher is right and that people should not believe everything they hear.
I think that Candide might be getting confused as to what to believe. Yes, he is rescued by an old woman after being flogged by the Grand Inquisitor, and yes, he was able to see Cunegund again because what happened happened. Still, he begins to doubt that everything happens for a reason because his mentor was hanged and because he was forced to kill both a Jew and the Grand Inquisitor. He also doesn't understand why the looting and taking of the castle happened. He starts to doubt the teachings of his mentor. Maybe Candide will finally "wake up" from his ignorance, maybe he will discover finally about the new world and leave his happiness from being safe in the castle completely behind, but discover a new world with his new lover Cunegund.
Ignorance is Bliss (Candide Chapters 1-3)
Voltaire's novel Candide starts off by introducing us the main character, Candide, a young boy living in his supposed uncle(the Baron)'s castle in Westphalia, where he lives a good, healthy life and he recieves an education, based primarily on the philosophical teachings of his teacher, Pangloss. These teachings are based mainly on the philosophy of cause and effect, everything happens because of something else. "He could prove to admiration that there is no effect without a cause;" (Voltaire, Candide). These were the basic things that Candide learned. This idea of cause and effect might also bring us to the idea of destiny, or things happening to a person for a reason. What if Candide was meant to be thrown out of the castle for being in love with Cunigund? I think him being thrown out was both a good thing and a bad thing. It was bad in the sense that he had nowhere to, no money whatsoever and he was completely naïve and ignorant to everything. He actually believed in everything his master taught him and had no idea of the things that were going on in the "real world". He had no clue as to what was going on with the Bulgarians and war, and he had no knowledge of the Pope, or, for that matter, of religion. In the world outside of the castle, he was frowned upon for his ignorance. He was also able to be manipulated by others, something which cost him greatly when it came to the Bulgarians. They convinced him he was a hero and he went with them, only to be treated like a slave. Still, it was good that he learned about the outside world and how things really were. Maybe this is Voltaire's way of making fun of royalty, or mocking them, showing them as a people who have no real clue as to what's actually going on and their ignorance towards the common man. Still, Candide is just overwhelmingly naïve. Also, does it might seem as if Voltaire was making fun of the church, or religion, attacking them for manipulating people's minds and not helping others. This might occur where Candide is in Holland and he is not helped by a man who asks him if he believes "the Pope to be Antichrist" because Candide has no idea who he is. The "mockery" of the church might also be seen when, after being cursed by the religious man, Candide is helped and aided by a man who is not a christian, perhaps showing the hypocrisy of the Church where its followers don't help others even though it is a basic "rule" of the church.
"Ignorance is Bliss," this might fit into the novel due to the fact that Candide, despite living in ignorance and naïtivity, lives in complete happiness. He lives in one of, if not the, greatest castle in all of Westphalia and the world, he eats well and he learns "everything" with his teacher. He believes everything he knows to be real because he believes his teacher tells him he is the greatest philosopher in the world. He is naïve enough to believe this, but he lives happy because he believes what he knows to be completely true. Even when he is in Holland, and people are taking advantage of him or frowing upon him, he still believes his ideas to be true, and continues to praise his teacher Pangloss. "Now I am convinced that my Master Pangloss told me truth when he said that everything was for the best in this world; for I am infinitely more affected with your extraordinary generosity than with the inhumanity of that gentleman in the black cloak and his wife." (Voltaire, Candide).
"Ignorance is Bliss," this might fit into the novel due to the fact that Candide, despite living in ignorance and naïtivity, lives in complete happiness. He lives in one of, if not the, greatest castle in all of Westphalia and the world, he eats well and he learns "everything" with his teacher. He believes everything he knows to be real because he believes his teacher tells him he is the greatest philosopher in the world. He is naïve enough to believe this, but he lives happy because he believes what he knows to be completely true. Even when he is in Holland, and people are taking advantage of him or frowing upon him, he still believes his ideas to be true, and continues to praise his teacher Pangloss. "Now I am convinced that my Master Pangloss told me truth when he said that everything was for the best in this world; for I am infinitely more affected with your extraordinary generosity than with the inhumanity of that gentleman in the black cloak and his wife." (Voltaire, Candide).
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Slaughterhouse - Five Reading Entry Pages 154-182
In this section, there is a part in the story when Billy is unconscious after being in a plane accident, one that Billy knew was going to happen. After the crash, he is taken to a hospital where he has a surgeon fix his brain and he rests unconscious for two days. What happens while he's unconscious disprooves my idea that his time travels were dreams or desires he wanted. It turns out that Billy dreamt a million, wonderful things, according to the author, some of them true, while others weren't. "The true things were time-travel," (Vonnegut 157). Apparently really is able to see the world more like Tralfamadorians than like humans, meaning that he is close to seeing life in four dimensions. Billy can witness different moments and periods in his life, but we don't know if he can do them on purpose. Also, how do we know that each Billy is not a different Billy. What I mean is what if Billy might be a different person (personality-wise, still same body and person) during the war than say the plane accident. How do we know that the two Billys are the same? He is looking at two different moments in his life, one Billy might be a strange, immature kid while other might be a full grown, professional man.
If we relate Slaughterhouse - Five to Gulliver's Travels, one can see that in both stories the protagonist's change from their true way of being. For example, Billy began to time-travel when he was walking through the forest with the Three Musketeers (this scene might have some special importance since Billy keeps recurring through it and it's where he first time-travelled) and began looking at the world in a different way. He began to see and live like the Tralfamadorians, being able to see different moments in time. He began to think like another "species", like a Tralfamadorian, not like a human being. The protagonist in Gulliver's Travels is an Englishman, a European and most importantly a human being. The protagonist visits the land of the Houyhnhnms, a sort of horse-people. he lives with them and acquires their customs, their way of regarding others, like Yahoos (himself one). He even begins to speak like them. When the protagonist arrives at the island with the Portuguese men, they ask him where he's from. He responds he's an Englishman coming from the land of Houyhnhnms and that he was a Yahoo, just like them. The Portuguese did not know what a Yahoo or Houyhnhnm was, and they laughed at the fact that he spoke strangely, like a horse neighing, probably because of the Houyhnhnms' influence. Both protagonists adapt to a different way of being.
During his eighteenth anniversary party, Billy has some guests over including the extravagant, outspoken Kilgore Trout. Author of many unsuccessful comics, Trout is worshipped by Billy. What is Trout's importance in the story? Probably something about his books, the themes they discuss. Do they relate somehow to the story? The author mentions that Trout does write sci-fi stories, maybe it's through this that they relate to Billy Pilgrim. Weird stories about unusual things. Also interesting, is the fact that during a song in the party, Billy is shockled at hearing it, blown away, and he remembers a memory of the night of the Dresden bombing., where he was with four guards. The singing quartet reminded him of the Dresden quartet. The author mentions that, even though Billy does remember the incident, he doesn't travel back to it. "He didn't travel in time to the experience. He remembered it shimmeringly..." (Vonnegut 177). Why is this? Perhaps Billy only travels or visits places he wants to see, places that are appealing to him, that might show some desire of his. Maybe Billy is afraid to travel to certain moments in time, and he just wants to see moments where he has something he desires.
If we relate Slaughterhouse - Five to Gulliver's Travels, one can see that in both stories the protagonist's change from their true way of being. For example, Billy began to time-travel when he was walking through the forest with the Three Musketeers (this scene might have some special importance since Billy keeps recurring through it and it's where he first time-travelled) and began looking at the world in a different way. He began to see and live like the Tralfamadorians, being able to see different moments in time. He began to think like another "species", like a Tralfamadorian, not like a human being. The protagonist in Gulliver's Travels is an Englishman, a European and most importantly a human being. The protagonist visits the land of the Houyhnhnms, a sort of horse-people. he lives with them and acquires their customs, their way of regarding others, like Yahoos (himself one). He even begins to speak like them. When the protagonist arrives at the island with the Portuguese men, they ask him where he's from. He responds he's an Englishman coming from the land of Houyhnhnms and that he was a Yahoo, just like them. The Portuguese did not know what a Yahoo or Houyhnhnm was, and they laughed at the fact that he spoke strangely, like a horse neighing, probably because of the Houyhnhnms' influence. Both protagonists adapt to a different way of being.
During his eighteenth anniversary party, Billy has some guests over including the extravagant, outspoken Kilgore Trout. Author of many unsuccessful comics, Trout is worshipped by Billy. What is Trout's importance in the story? Probably something about his books, the themes they discuss. Do they relate somehow to the story? The author mentions that Trout does write sci-fi stories, maybe it's through this that they relate to Billy Pilgrim. Weird stories about unusual things. Also interesting, is the fact that during a song in the party, Billy is shockled at hearing it, blown away, and he remembers a memory of the night of the Dresden bombing., where he was with four guards. The singing quartet reminded him of the Dresden quartet. The author mentions that, even though Billy does remember the incident, he doesn't travel back to it. "He didn't travel in time to the experience. He remembered it shimmeringly..." (Vonnegut 177). Why is this? Perhaps Billy only travels or visits places he wants to see, places that are appealing to him, that might show some desire of his. Maybe Billy is afraid to travel to certain moments in time, and he just wants to see moments where he has something he desires.
Slaughterhouse - Five Reading Entry Pages 136-153
Billy once again finds himself in the war in a latrine. He feels a magnetic impulse somewhere near, and finds the magnetism is coming from two objects inside his coat lining. One looks like a pea and the other resembles a tiny horseshoe. What is the author's purpose to mentioning this? Apart from when he tells Billy senses a message which tells him not to ponder on the objects, Vonnegut doesn't mentiion them again at all. It just leaves it hanging there, as if he just mentioned them because he felt like it. It left me wondering, what do these objects represent? Does the horseshoe perhaps have anything to do with luck? I hope the author will mention them in future chapters and hopefully shed some light on the subject because I'm stumped. Billy however, is once again sleeping on morphine. He is sleeping but doesn't travel through time. What made him feel the magnetic impulses? Was it, in some way, the Tralfamadorians? Maybe it was just the morphine kicking in, but who knows.
Billy had met two fellow Americans: Edgar Derby and Paul Lazzaro, another crazy guy who adores revenge and doesn't care for others, just like Weary. Coincidentally, Weary and Lazzaro were buddies in the cargo trains, where, just before he died, Weary told Lazzaro that he wanted Billy dead. Lazzaro gives Billy the warning, but he already knows, thanks to his time traveling abilities. Billy had visited his death many times. This scene might somehow show that Billy has these visions about things he really wants, his desires. Just before he is shot, he is giving a speech on time-traveling, on the mysteries of time, and saying goodbye. He is standing before a huge crowd, which loves him. Maybe that's all Billy wants, attention. He wnats to feel wanted and praised, as if he;d done something significant, in this case it would be revealing the mysteries of time. Maybe this was another dream where he is the center of attention and gets what he desires. What I don't get is why he is so indifferent to the fact that he is going to die and he accepts it. It reminds me of Camus' The Stranger, where Mersault knows he's going to die and he just accepts the fact that everyone is against him and he's alone in the world. If I knew when I was going to die, I would do anything possible to keep that from happening. However, maybe Vonnegut just wants to show that there are few things one has the power to change.
Billy had met two fellow Americans: Edgar Derby and Paul Lazzaro, another crazy guy who adores revenge and doesn't care for others, just like Weary. Coincidentally, Weary and Lazzaro were buddies in the cargo trains, where, just before he died, Weary told Lazzaro that he wanted Billy dead. Lazzaro gives Billy the warning, but he already knows, thanks to his time traveling abilities. Billy had visited his death many times. This scene might somehow show that Billy has these visions about things he really wants, his desires. Just before he is shot, he is giving a speech on time-traveling, on the mysteries of time, and saying goodbye. He is standing before a huge crowd, which loves him. Maybe that's all Billy wants, attention. He wnats to feel wanted and praised, as if he;d done something significant, in this case it would be revealing the mysteries of time. Maybe this was another dream where he is the center of attention and gets what he desires. What I don't get is why he is so indifferent to the fact that he is going to die and he accepts it. It reminds me of Camus' The Stranger, where Mersault knows he's going to die and he just accepts the fact that everyone is against him and he's alone in the world. If I knew when I was going to die, I would do anything possible to keep that from happening. However, maybe Vonnegut just wants to show that there are few things one has the power to change.
Slaughterhouse - Five Reading Entry Pages 119-136
Billy finds himself in bed with his wife on the night of their honeymoon. He is practically ignoring, barely answering her question and from the way it's written you can feel that he's thinking about something else, maybe even wnadering off in time. "You must have secrets about the war..."
"No."
"I'm proud you were a soldier. Do you know that?"
"Good."
"Was it awful?"
"Sometimes." (Vonnegut 121). Billy is barely paying attention to his wife, wandering off into space, or in his case, time. After this conversation he gets up to go to the bathroom, and arrives to the war, where funnily enough he still has to go to the bathroom. It seems as though he is living the same feelings even though he is in two completely different moments. Another example of this would be when he is in the Tralfamadorian zoo sleeping with Montana Wildhack, and suddenly he awakens in his own bed realizing that it was just a wet dream (Vonnegut 135). This brings us to the question of is Billy really travelling through time? What if these trips are all dreams that happen when he is forced to rest, like his honeymoon bed or his daughter forcing him to sleep after a patient's mother freaked out and said Billy was crazy? It just makes me feel that it's just dreams representing something he wnats. maybe he wants to remember what the war was like while talking to his new wife. Maybe he wanted to feel he was with Montana Wildhack, the famous actress. The trips could be real or represent desires, either memories or hopes.
In this chapter, the author makes a reference to himself. When Billy travels back to the war after getting up to go to the bathroom, he encounters a Russian, ignores him, walks into a latrine filled with sick Americans. He steps over on who says he had "excreted everything but his brains" and who would later say "There they go." "That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book." (Vonnegut 125). Why would the author make a reference to himself, especially in the type of situation he is? Why would he want to show himself in that state? Probably to show the hardships that a soldier was forced to live in and that he was a part of that. This reminds me a bit of Don Quixote, in which the author, Miguel de Cervantes, makes constant references to himself having a part in the story by presenting the "original" author's (Cid Hamete Benengeli) story. It is the same as Vonnegut, except for the fact that Vonnegut seems proud of having a part in the story, whereas Cervantes is constantly avoiding the fact that he truly wrote the novel, he mentions he is merely passing it on.
"No."
"I'm proud you were a soldier. Do you know that?"
"Good."
"Was it awful?"
"Sometimes." (Vonnegut 121). Billy is barely paying attention to his wife, wandering off into space, or in his case, time. After this conversation he gets up to go to the bathroom, and arrives to the war, where funnily enough he still has to go to the bathroom. It seems as though he is living the same feelings even though he is in two completely different moments. Another example of this would be when he is in the Tralfamadorian zoo sleeping with Montana Wildhack, and suddenly he awakens in his own bed realizing that it was just a wet dream (Vonnegut 135). This brings us to the question of is Billy really travelling through time? What if these trips are all dreams that happen when he is forced to rest, like his honeymoon bed or his daughter forcing him to sleep after a patient's mother freaked out and said Billy was crazy? It just makes me feel that it's just dreams representing something he wnats. maybe he wants to remember what the war was like while talking to his new wife. Maybe he wanted to feel he was with Montana Wildhack, the famous actress. The trips could be real or represent desires, either memories or hopes.
In this chapter, the author makes a reference to himself. When Billy travels back to the war after getting up to go to the bathroom, he encounters a Russian, ignores him, walks into a latrine filled with sick Americans. He steps over on who says he had "excreted everything but his brains" and who would later say "There they go." "That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book." (Vonnegut 125). Why would the author make a reference to himself, especially in the type of situation he is? Why would he want to show himself in that state? Probably to show the hardships that a soldier was forced to live in and that he was a part of that. This reminds me a bit of Don Quixote, in which the author, Miguel de Cervantes, makes constant references to himself having a part in the story by presenting the "original" author's (Cid Hamete Benengeli) story. It is the same as Vonnegut, except for the fact that Vonnegut seems proud of having a part in the story, whereas Cervantes is constantly avoiding the fact that he truly wrote the novel, he mentions he is merely passing it on.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Slaughterhouse-Five Fourth Reading Entry
Billy is taken to a British camp where they have sympathy for him due to the fact that he's in a horrible state. They ask him why he has that coat given to him by "Jerry" (Germany), when they were trying to make fun of him. Billy still doesn't seem to care about anything. The British tell him this and he's completely indifferent to this, as well as to everything.
The author mentions that after laughing so hard in the Cinderella production, Billy had to be given morphine, making him dream things out of this world. Is there some special significance that the author is trying to give to this dream? To the giraffes in the dream? What's the purpose for putting them in the story. After this billy travels in time again to when he's in the Ilium hospital. I guess every place he visits has some special importance to him, in this case he discovers his favorite books are science-fiction books. Other important (significant) trips for him might have been the one with his family to the Grand Canyon, where he remebers a French tourist asking if people ever killed themselves by jumping off. The author once again mentions "So it goes" but now he doesn't mention it when just people die, but when material things "die". For example, the dead champagne in chapter 4. What it really means is that there's no gas in the champagne but the author still uses "so it goes". Does this represent the idea that we can't change anything, that we must accept the facts by saying "so it goes"?
Billy is shown in a Tralfamadorian zoo, where "people" ask him questions. He tries to figure some stuff out about time and life and the Universe, but the Tralfamadorians already know anything, so they just tell him every answer but tell him to forget it because it's already happening. I would get pretty annoyed if they would keep giving me the same answer, that every moment will always happen. If you know that you are going to destroy the universe, you might as well try and stop it from happening. What I mean is you don't have the power to change a lot of things, but when you have the chance to make a difference, one should try to do it.
The author mentions that after laughing so hard in the Cinderella production, Billy had to be given morphine, making him dream things out of this world. Is there some special significance that the author is trying to give to this dream? To the giraffes in the dream? What's the purpose for putting them in the story. After this billy travels in time again to when he's in the Ilium hospital. I guess every place he visits has some special importance to him, in this case he discovers his favorite books are science-fiction books. Other important (significant) trips for him might have been the one with his family to the Grand Canyon, where he remebers a French tourist asking if people ever killed themselves by jumping off. The author once again mentions "So it goes" but now he doesn't mention it when just people die, but when material things "die". For example, the dead champagne in chapter 4. What it really means is that there's no gas in the champagne but the author still uses "so it goes". Does this represent the idea that we can't change anything, that we must accept the facts by saying "so it goes"?
Billy is shown in a Tralfamadorian zoo, where "people" ask him questions. He tries to figure some stuff out about time and life and the Universe, but the Tralfamadorians already know anything, so they just tell him every answer but tell him to forget it because it's already happening. I would get pretty annoyed if they would keep giving me the same answer, that every moment will always happen. If you know that you are going to destroy the universe, you might as well try and stop it from happening. What I mean is you don't have the power to change a lot of things, but when you have the chance to make a difference, one should try to do it.
Slaughterhouse-Five Third Reading Entry
The third chapter starts out with Billy waking up on the night of his daughter's wedding and not being able to sleep. Here he starts to see time a bit like the Tralfamadorians, he starts watching a movie backwards. Eventually, he starts seeing everything backwards, the whole history of his life, including the war, and the history of mankind which is destined (though backwards) to lead to two people only: Adam and Eve. This is the second time the author makes reference to these two characters. Is there a certain importance to this? Why are Adam and Eve important to the story, if they are important at all?
Something else that caught my attention is the author has mentioned twice how a dog's bark is interpreted by Billy Pilgrim. "Somwhere a dog barked. With the help of fear and echoes and winter silences, that dog had a voice like big bronze gong."(Vonnegut 82). The author also mentioned a dog barking in the beginning of the third chapter. Is there an importance to the way dogs bark? If not, why does the author mention this? Why does he keep bringing up points that make no sense? For example, the bit on Newton's Third law of Motion, and his wife having no uterus. I just think that the author sometimes includes stuff that is not really necessary.
How does Billy know he is going to be abducted by the Tralfamadorians? Is he crazy and just thinks about all of this in his mind? I think Vonnegut is trying to make a point about something with this time travel thing, but I just don't know what it could be. Maybe he is trying to tell us not to try and manipulate things, things are meant to be and they will happen, just live your life. "Only on Earth is there talk of free will."(Vonnegut 86) This says that according to the Tralfamadorians, everything has happened and always will happen, we can't change anything.
Something else that caught my attention is the author has mentioned twice how a dog's bark is interpreted by Billy Pilgrim. "Somwhere a dog barked. With the help of fear and echoes and winter silences, that dog had a voice like big bronze gong."(Vonnegut 82). The author also mentioned a dog barking in the beginning of the third chapter. Is there an importance to the way dogs bark? If not, why does the author mention this? Why does he keep bringing up points that make no sense? For example, the bit on Newton's Third law of Motion, and his wife having no uterus. I just think that the author sometimes includes stuff that is not really necessary.
How does Billy know he is going to be abducted by the Tralfamadorians? Is he crazy and just thinks about all of this in his mind? I think Vonnegut is trying to make a point about something with this time travel thing, but I just don't know what it could be. Maybe he is trying to tell us not to try and manipulate things, things are meant to be and they will happen, just live your life. "Only on Earth is there talk of free will."(Vonnegut 86) This says that according to the Tralfamadorians, everything has happened and always will happen, we can't change anything.
Slaughterhouse Five Second Reading Entry
This chapter of the book continues to talk about Billy Pilgrim's life during the war. However, in this chapter he travels through time even more. The thing I don't understand is why these flashbacks just happen all of a sudden and take him to an unpredictable place. Do these places in time have an important meaning? Are they important to the story or events that are really important in Billy's life? Was it important that he fell asleep during an optometrist examination? maybe it was something in his life that really bothered him.
Another thing I find very interesting with the way Vonnegut writes is the way he focuses on small details that might otherwise seem unimportant. For example, what is the purpose for mentioning that the golden boots the german general had on had an inscription of Adam and Eve on them? What did it matter if the German's took the dirty picture Weary kept? I like the way Vonnegut writes, because he gives a certain importance to every single detail he is describing.
Vonnegut also mentions a certain prayer that Billy keeps his optometrist office that his patients like: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." It is one of the greatest prayers I myself have ever read, and I also keep a copy of it. It shows us that one does not have the power to do everything, and even though life may seem hard, one just has to do the best to move on. Maybe this is why billy remembers it, during his trip to his optometrist days. He wants to know that he must move on, that there's nothing he can do about being a prisoner of war and he might as well accept it.
The story itself is pretty good. There's a good plot to it and I just feel that this book teaches something important. Vonnegut writes in a way that you know something is going to happen and you just want to keep reading.
Another thing I find very interesting with the way Vonnegut writes is the way he focuses on small details that might otherwise seem unimportant. For example, what is the purpose for mentioning that the golden boots the german general had on had an inscription of Adam and Eve on them? What did it matter if the German's took the dirty picture Weary kept? I like the way Vonnegut writes, because he gives a certain importance to every single detail he is describing.
Vonnegut also mentions a certain prayer that Billy keeps his optometrist office that his patients like: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." It is one of the greatest prayers I myself have ever read, and I also keep a copy of it. It shows us that one does not have the power to do everything, and even though life may seem hard, one just has to do the best to move on. Maybe this is why billy remembers it, during his trip to his optometrist days. He wants to know that he must move on, that there's nothing he can do about being a prisoner of war and he might as well accept it.
The story itself is pretty good. There's a good plot to it and I just feel that this book teaches something important. Vonnegut writes in a way that you know something is going to happen and you just want to keep reading.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Journal Entry Second Chapter, Slaughterhouse-Five
This new chapter takes on a whole different trun than the first chapter. Here is where the story really begins. the previous chapter was sort of like an introduction, where the character gives a bit of background information about himself and what his purpose, be it as a goal or in his life as a whole, is. One thing that I noticed was the change in narrator from one chapter to the other. The first chapter is told in first person, where as the second chapter is told in third person, in which the narrator is omniscient.
The second chapter starts telling the actual story of Billy Pilgrim, his youth, his service in th emilitary, his life back home and his crazy stories about aliens who can see and travel through time at the same time. Throughout this chapter, the narrator mentions people whom Billy knew and connections of these people. Every paragraph with a description of a "flash-back" ends with the phrase "So it goes." What does the phrase mean? What is the author's purpose for using it? the only answer i could think of to this is that Billy thinks the way the aliens do, he "sees" through time, so he can see different stages of a person's life at the same time. He can visit any momente he wishes and he knows that you can't change anything. "So it goes" could make a reference to the fact that when a person dies, there's nothing you can do about it, just accept it and remember good moments of that person's life.
When Billy first "travels" through time, he is in the German woods during the Second World War, wlaking with the two scouts and with Weary. Did being alone and separated from everyone help him enter that trance-like state and travel through time? Was it being so far away from home that he was able to let go of all his thoughts and feel free, mentally? Maybe, these trip through time aren't really true, they just happen in Billy's head as a way of relaxing, or letting go of reality. He's in a tough situation, walking through the woods with a crazy teenager who is obsessed with torture, running away from the Germans, and having to stand really cold weather. Maybe he lets himself fly mentally, and just get away from everything.
The second chapter starts telling the actual story of Billy Pilgrim, his youth, his service in th emilitary, his life back home and his crazy stories about aliens who can see and travel through time at the same time. Throughout this chapter, the narrator mentions people whom Billy knew and connections of these people. Every paragraph with a description of a "flash-back" ends with the phrase "So it goes." What does the phrase mean? What is the author's purpose for using it? the only answer i could think of to this is that Billy thinks the way the aliens do, he "sees" through time, so he can see different stages of a person's life at the same time. He can visit any momente he wishes and he knows that you can't change anything. "So it goes" could make a reference to the fact that when a person dies, there's nothing you can do about it, just accept it and remember good moments of that person's life.
When Billy first "travels" through time, he is in the German woods during the Second World War, wlaking with the two scouts and with Weary. Did being alone and separated from everyone help him enter that trance-like state and travel through time? Was it being so far away from home that he was able to let go of all his thoughts and feel free, mentally? Maybe, these trip through time aren't really true, they just happen in Billy's head as a way of relaxing, or letting go of reality. He's in a tough situation, walking through the woods with a crazy teenager who is obsessed with torture, running away from the Germans, and having to stand really cold weather. Maybe he lets himself fly mentally, and just get away from everything.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Essay Answers
1. According to the author, there are many differences between books and blogs. These include that books are fast while blogs are slow, books are to stay within the covers while blogs are to stray, and many more. However, the most obvious difference between a blog and book is the following. A blog is online, one can share information with others, discuss your points of view, follow links, post stuff about yourself, you follow links, etc., while a book is just the story. You can't share information with others (save the information the author is sharing with you) and you can't write whatever you write in a book. It has to make some sort of sense, while in a blog it doesn't necessarily have to. Writing in a blog is much more informal than that of a book.
2. The early blogs used to be a sort of filter for the web. They would include links that would lead to a certain webpage to discuss articles, politics, whatever. Recent blogs are about personal information and more importantly about "being found". People try to post things that will gain attention to themselves and have more people every day visiting their own blogs, ultimately becoming a "blogebrity", the term used by the author.
3. You might read a blog for many different reasons. You might want to learn or talk (express your opinions) about a certain topic, whether it be gossip, sports, economy or politics. Whatever topic you're interested in, you can find it. Aside from wanting to read about certain topics, people might look at blogs to find friends or look at their friends' profiles.
4. There is reason to doubt the objectiveness of a blog due to the fact that what people write on blogs are opinions (some might even post fake information). Opinions are subjective and therefore one does not know that what the blog is showing is fair, or written with good arguments. Therefore, one must doubt the objectiveness of a blog.
5. My Blog.
2. The early blogs used to be a sort of filter for the web. They would include links that would lead to a certain webpage to discuss articles, politics, whatever. Recent blogs are about personal information and more importantly about "being found". People try to post things that will gain attention to themselves and have more people every day visiting their own blogs, ultimately becoming a "blogebrity", the term used by the author.
3. You might read a blog for many different reasons. You might want to learn or talk (express your opinions) about a certain topic, whether it be gossip, sports, economy or politics. Whatever topic you're interested in, you can find it. Aside from wanting to read about certain topics, people might look at blogs to find friends or look at their friends' profiles.
4. There is reason to doubt the objectiveness of a blog due to the fact that what people write on blogs are opinions (some might even post fake information). Opinions are subjective and therefore one does not know that what the blog is showing is fair, or written with good arguments. Therefore, one must doubt the objectiveness of a blog.
5. My Blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
