Book Club: March - Slaugherhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut

[abbey]

Discuss the book here!

Rules:
You don't have to be finished reading the book to comment on it.
Make sure to tag and label your spoilers.
Say what chapter you're talking about even if you don't have spoilers in your post.
CONTRIBUTE. If you just post something like "I'm liking the book so far" and that's all, you're going to get a Time Out. Either comment on something you think should be discussed, or talk about what someone else has said.
All other forum rules apply. Read them if you haven't.

And that's it!

[timbot]

I read all but the last few pages today at work. It was a quicker read than I expected.
Anyway, I have a thought about the book in general. You don't have to have read it all to give some input here.
Does anyone else notice that Billy doesn't do much? It seems more that everything is happening to him and around him.
I also thought it was interesting that Vonnegut started chapter 2--where the story really starts--with "Listen:" It makes one aware that you're hearing a story, and it made me think of the times before books existed, or when they were not as common, when people told stories more. He does the "Listen:" thing a couple more times in the book. I'm not sure if there's a specific reason, or if he just thought it sounded good at those parts.

[Matt]

Don't forget chapter spoilers in every post. If you want to discuss it with the rest of us, try discussing it a chapter at a time.

[schlachthof.funf]

Does anyone else notice that Billy doesn't do much? It seems more that everything is happening to him and around him.


I think Vonnegut's attempting to make Billy helpless by writing him as an ordinary, somewhat boring character. The things happen to him, not because of him. Billy (and Vonnegut's)'s general desperation because of their inability to control their surroundings or lives relates back to the "bug in amber" theme.

[timbot]

Hmm...see, I don't really think that being ordinary makes one helpless. But, you're right, the "bug in amber" theme really sums up that helplessness. I feel like it's really hard to discuss anything for fear of spoiling something for someone. So, I'll say this: you may not want to read the following unless you've read the whole story. Though, in my personal opinion, I don't think what I'm about to say will actually detract from the story. It's up to you. It's stated pretty clearly by the Tralfamadorians--whom Billy Pilgrim agrees with--that there really isn't free will. This, of course, fits well with their ability to see the fourth dimension--time. I wonder if perhaps this view of time and fate is really a coping mechanism for only one event--the fire bombing. That view, then, affects the whole story.
The narrator in the opening also says this is an anti-war book. I definitely didn't feel like it was promoting war or making it look heroic, but I also didn't get a lot of strong anti-war sentiment either...

[jewishjosh]

I also didn't get a lot of strong anti-war sentiment either...

I think Vonnegut meant to convey that partly through the bug in amber theme. The emotions are in the descriptions of the things happening around Billy, and how he perceives them. It's not very evident, but it's there.

*Note: maybe don't read this next bit if you haven't read the spoiler above.

It's funny how you said you didn't think the spoiler would detract from the story. I agree. Near the beginning when Billy first meets the school teacher (pretty sure it was a school teacher, I read the book in September), he says that this character will die. We already know that Dresden will be fire-bombed. The story, as Billy's recollection of the events, is told out of order and in hindsight, just like the Tralfamadorian view of time, where everything is essentially hindsight because you can look "back" on anything. There is no "back", there is no real order to the story, thus the ending can be (and is) ruined to some degree.

[timbot]

Yeah, I really don't think there's a way to spoil the plot of this story. I can't think of anything you could say that would be a real spoiler. There are themes you can't discuss until you've read it all, but hearing other people discuss them won't detract from enjoying the book, I don't think. It's not a story that's based heavily on a plot. It's much more thematically based.
But, I already got put in time out for forgetting to use a spoiler one time, so I'll just try to play it safe.

[Matt]

I'll give one last warning. Chapter spoilers in EVERY post. Read the book club rules. No chapter spoilers from here on out will result in TOs.

[Pachycephelosaurus]

I've read the whole book, so if you haven't don't read my post.

Do you guys think that Vonnegut's stance as the author was pro- or anti-predestination? On the surface it may seem to have been obviously pro, but think about it. Billy was a rather pathetic character. He was looked down upon by everybody else, he was able to do very little to save himself from disaster, really wasn't all that admirable. So, if the biggest proof for predestination is such a foolish and lost character, do you think that means Vonnegut is actually arguing against what it seems he's for?

I'd like to hear some other opinions before stating my own.

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/bankamp/)
Reason: No chapter spoilers.

[timbot]

I've read the whole book, so if you haven't don't read my post.

Do you guys think that Vonnegut's stance as the author was pro- or anti-predestination? On the surface it may seem to have been obviously pro, but think about it. Billy was a rather pathetic character. He was looked down upon by everybody else, he was able to do very little to save himself from disaster, really wasn't all that admirable. So, if the biggest proof for predestination is such a foolish and lost character, do you think that means Vonnegut is actually arguing against what it seems he's for?

I'd like to hear some other opinions before stating my own.

Again, don't read this, maybe, if you haven't finished the book Interesting points about Billy. However, don't forget that he's the one who survived. So many other people around him died, and he continued to live, despite the disasters, and without doing anything to save himself. You say he couldn't do much to save himself from disaster, but really all the disasters happen around him, and not so much too him. He gets sent up to the front lines of the war at a time when most everyone there is already dead. He finds a few real soldiers who let him tag along. Though, once the two break free of him, they die. The other dies on the train. Billy doesn't get sick like all the other men after their first meal at the camp. He survives the fire bombing, and later is the only one to survive the plane crash. And none of it is survived because of any decisive action on his part. I think that Vonnegut is siding with predestination on this. Billy is not foolish because he believes in fate or predestination. I can't think of any time when he takes on an attitude of "I'm not going to do anything, because I know it will all work out." It doesn't seem that Billy is relying on fate. If that were the case, I'd say Vonnegut is making an anti-point of him. Using him to show why the idea of fate is silly. However, Billy is constantly kept alive and pulled along through life, despite his weaknesses as a character. To me, this suggests a positive argument for predestination.

nobody ever accused me of being brief....

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/bankamp/)
Reason: No chapter spoilers and huge block of black spoiler text.

[Matt]

For fucks sake, CHAPTER. SPOILERS.

http://forums.explosm.net/showpost.php?p=373886&postcount=3
http://forums.explosm.net/showpost.php?p=373886&postcount=3
http://forums.explosm.net/showpost.php?p=373886&postcount=3

We use a format to make it nice and easy for everyone. Stick to it or get the fuck out.

And holy shit, don't use the spoiler tag like that. In fact, if you use the spoiler warnings, you want have to use those tags at all!

[Chrono]

i've not got a copy of the book with me anymore, but did anyone else think that Vonnegut's use of aliens and a non linear plot line was just as he found it hard to deal with writing about what actually happened to him? the subject matter of this is what makes it a fantastic book, but i'd not say it was as well written as maybe breakfast of champions, or cats cradle.

[Matt]

Fuck you, Chrono.

[Audioslave]

I just started re-reading the book, and I had forgotten how much I loved the idea of the Children's Crusade. I think it brilliantly conveys the nations of the world crawling to these global conflicts that it knows nothing about. Also, later on in the book, Billy comes across as the most mature of the troops, as he isn't gung-ho to go around killing Germans. The fact that he is ridiculed by his peers gives credit to the elementary school psychology.

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/bankamp/)
Reason: No chapter spoilers.

[Matt]

USE THE FUCKING CHAPTER SPOILERS FOR FUCK'S SAKE. PAY ATTENTION YOU GOD DAMN ASSHOLES.

[Matt]

Chapter 2:

I really enjoyed Vonnegut's use of repetition with the "So it goes" line. Alone, it's a dramatic tool that works well, but he also tied it into this abstract idea of aliens talking to him and describing death and time. It'll be interesting to see where he takes it from here on.

[SealPunter]

Chapter 2:

I really enjoyed Vonnegut's use of repetition with the "So it goes" line. Alone, it's a dramatic tool that works well, but he also tied it into this abstract idea of aliens talking to him and describing death and time. It'll be interesting to see where he takes it from here on.

Vonnegut is one author whose novels I can not peel my eyes from. The opportunity to tear through yet another was too appealing to refuse. So here I am on the fourth chapter seeing Vonnegut's repetitive symbolism embedded in yet another novel.

Matt you took the words right out of my mouth. So it goes was described as a Tralfamadorian saying that deals with the idea of being "unstuck in time" and understanding how the world ends, which will be constantly popping up throughout the novel. It is their way of saying "They/it died, yeah, but the world doesn't end because of it." It is pretty interesting, and I can not wait to read on.

Just my two cents. :gj:

[Matt]

I'll say it again just to make sure everyone gets it. Start EVERY post with a chapter spoiler. Just a little bold tag before your post that says "Chapter X:" That's all you need to worry about.

This is for the benefit of everyone. If everybody who participates can do this one little thing, every post will make it easy to determine what's safe to read and what's not.

Chrono's post, for example, ruined the surprise of the introduction of the aliens since I had not read past the first chapter. Had he started his post with "Chapter 2:" that wouldn't have been spoiled for me.

See how this simple little rule makes the thread work for everybody?

[timbot]

Chapter 2:
The repetition of "so it goes" that Matt pointed out is pretty interesting. It really makes me wonder about the emotion behind it. In some ways it seems peaceful and simply accepting. After all, he got the idea from the Tralfamadorians who see can see all of time at once, and so have to accept death in such a way. But, it also seems a little callous.
All of the talk about seeing in the dimension of time and the Tralfamadorian point that a person may be dead at one time while alive in another, previous time, is also intriguing since the narrator says at the end of chapter one "People aren't supposed to look back."
So, even though, Billy Pilgrim seems to uphold this idea of seeing all of time, and even moving through time non-linearly, the narrator seems to look at things quite differently.

[Chrono]

sorry matt, i assumed you'd read the back cover

the so it goes phrase i always found was born out of his feeling of being completely battered by the subject matter, he knows whats about to come and how little he has to say in the matter and is resigned to his fate

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/bankamp/)
Reason: Once again, capitalize and punctuate.

[SealPunter]

Chapter 2-5:


The phrase "So it goes", as I said earlier, is a saying Billy borrowed from the Tralfamadorians. Tralfamadorians see everything in a "fourth dimension", as Vonnegut puts it in one of the early chapters. The fourth dimension is explained as timeless, in a sense, They see humans as huge millipedes at every point in their life, they even know how the world ends! <-- (Spoiler, dunno how to do that cool shit.) They look at a death as a fact, not an event. When something has happened, it always will happen, and thats how the Tralfamadorians see it. It is truly an interesting concept and Vonnegut's useful descriptions and analogies honestly made it an easy concept to grasp.


p.s. 5 is a VERY long chapter that you will not want to put down halfway through, so save time for it.

[Banthis]

So I've just finished the first chapter. I have to say that I've never read anything like is, Vonnegut's writing style is unlike any I've encountered. It was a nice introduction to Billy, part of his life and what he plans to accomplish with the Dresden book he is attempting to write, or actually ended up writing. I enjoyed the pacing and the way he tells his story, his thoughts are so scattered, but he flows so interestingly from one topic to the next while still maintaining to keep some focus on the points he wants to make.

Not sure if this is a spoiler, but:
Am I the only one who, after reading the end of the first chapter, went straight to last page of the book to see if "Poo-tee-weet?" was in fact the way it ended?

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/bankamp/)
Reason: No chapter spoiler. Pay attention...

[BilkEmDanno]

Chapter 1:

I just started reading the book (when does this book end, by the way [for the bookclub]?) and so far I've been poking my eyes out in boredom. Without spoiling ANYTHING for me, can anyone tell me if what is said in the first chapter is vital to the storyline? I'm not really understanding some of Vonnegut's message, and if it is important I will have to reread the part before I get any further.

[abbey]

The next book will be started in April, but discussion will stay open.

[timbot]

Chapter 1:

I just started reading the book (when does this book end, by the way [for the bookclub]?) and so far I've been poking my eyes out in boredom. Without spoiling ANYTHING for me, can anyone tell me if what is said in the first chapter is vital to the storyline? I'm not really understanding some of Vonnegut's message, and if it is important I will have to reread the part before I get any further.

Ch-ch-chapter 1
Without giving anything away...I'd say, not really. Perhaps you'd miss some subtler ideas, but you'll definitely get the plot even if you didn't read the first chapter. Chapter 1 is kind of like a prologue, the actually story starts with Chapter 2.

[Jaster99]

I've got a sort of abstract question for those who have finished the book. I've had my own opinion for quite some time but I'm curious to see how others see it.

Do you believe that Billy literally traveled through time and was captured by aliens or that he simply went insane?

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/bankamp/)
Reason: You're spoiling things!

[timbot]

I've got a sort of abstract question for those who have finished the book. I've had my own opinion for quite some time but I'm curious to see how others see it.

Do you believe that Billy literally traveled through time and was captured by aliens or that he simply went insane?

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/bankamp/)
Reason: You're spoiling things!

Chapter 1 through Chapter the rest of the book

I think he actually went insane. At the same time, though, I feel like it doesn't really matter. Insane or not, is not the important thing. I think it's really just a way for the narrator of the story to approach and handle the difficulty of recalling the war and life afterwards. It was, perhaps, just a way for Vonnegut to get out those things he wanted to write about without needing to worry so much about cohesion of plot and the issues of chronology. I know in my own writing, I've had times where I couldn't get the chronology of a true story quite right. It's terribly frustrating.
I think it's essentially a writing device, something to pull the story together, and explain the odd chronology. The value of that plot device doesn't really change depending on Billy's mental state.

[INTUNEevolution]

It's clear Vonnegut doesn't want to distinguish Billy's actions from a normal persons. The safest way to make him ordinary and sympathize-able is to make him benign and not VERY interesting or different. Really, the only thing that separates him from you or I is that he's crazy and we're not.

Well I am, but not in that way.

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/bankamp/)
Reason: No chapter spoilers.

[Insensetive_Clod]

I just seen the latest episode of the Lost (season 4 episode 5 :D ) and the character Desmond becomes "unstuck in time", they also describe it in those words. :D

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/bankamp/)
Reason: Thread shitting.

[John Travolta]

You mods are totally sucking the fun out of this which could have been promising. Every other person who posted in this thread got TOed for discussing the book. People don't want to post in these threads if you Nazis keep banning them for doing it wrong.

If you want a utopia become a Shaker and move to Massachusetts, so to speak.

Oh yeah:Chapter 1:

I just started reading the book (when does this book end, by the way [for the bookclub]?) and so far I've been poking my eyes out in boredom. Without spoiling ANYTHING for me, can anyone tell me if what is said in the first chapter is vital to the storyline? I'm not really understanding some of Vonnegut's message, and if it is important I will have to reread the part before I get any further.
The first chapter is a perfect example of Vonnegut's unique writing techniques. He's basically spoiling the book by giving the reader the first and last words in the book and it's somehow endearing to know how a book ends and what happens without even getting past the prologue. He tells the reader that certain characters will die and he's sort of endowing the reader with a form of psychic ability, so to speak.

OH MY LORD DID I USE THE SPOILER TAGS CORRECTLY!? I HOPE SO BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT TO GET BANZ0RD!11!!

[Chrono]

it seems to me that insensitive clod was just making a point about the book, and that it's been used in popular culture, TOable?

[jewishjosh]

The links between last week's episode of Lost and Slaughterhouse-Five deserve an entire thread to themselves. I'd rather not get into that, even though the merging of the two was like an intellectual orgasm for me. So many of the connections are self-evident that nothing needs to be said, plus Lost is a bit off-topic here.

Chapter Spoiler: whole book (probably)

Do you guys think that Vonnegut's stance as the author was pro- or anti-predestination? On the surface it may seem to have been obviously pro, but think about it. Billy was a rather pathetic character. He was looked down upon by everybody else, he was able to do very little to save himself from disaster, really wasn't all that admirable. So, if the biggest proof for predestination is such a foolish and lost character, do you think that means Vonnegut is actually arguing against what it seems he's for?
... And none of it is survived because of any decisive action on his part. I think that Vonnegut is siding with predestination on this. Billy is not foolish because he believes in fate or predestination. I can't think of any time when he takes on an attitude of "I'm not going to do anything, because I know it will all work out." ... Billy is constantly kept alive and pulled along through life, despite his weaknesses as a character. To me, this suggests a positive argument for predestination.

timbot has made some important observations, that Billy survives neither because of action nor conscious inaction. Billy's pathetic qualities don't really support the argument either way. Vonnegut uses fatalism as a way for Billy to make sense of the turmoil around him. Predestination actually gives Billy a sense of hope, not hopelessness, as it brings meaning to the chaos around him. It shows him a fascinating, hopeful world of aliens and knowledge and civilization beyond the terrors of warfare and winter. Vonnegut is definitely not arguing for or against the truth of predestination, but he is highlighting how it can be beneficial, even key to survival and sanity, in certain situations, if used right. Now I'd be interested to read the tale of a character who handles fate opposite to the way that Billy does.

Again, whether or not it's actually happening, as opposed to him imagining it and going crazy, is irrelevant. I like to think that it's really happening to Billy, because if we attribute his profound epiphanies about space and time to lunacy, it loses meaning again, at least for me.

[timbot]

Hear hear, John Travolta. Aren't all the Shakers dead by now, though? Since they're not allowed to have sex and who the hell would want to convert to Shakerism?
But now, to talk about the book.
The whole book...it probably will be every time I post
Not only does the first chapter give the reader a kind of psychic feeling, it also pulls focus away from the basic plot structure...the "what's going to happen next" attitude. In a way, this is a very plot-less book. Yes, something is happening in the story. But our main character, as we've discussed above, does almost nothing. I suppose one could call Billy the protagonist of the story simply because he's the central character, but then, who is the antagonist? It's a war story, but the enemy is rarely mentioned and there is almost no fighting. There does not seem to be a central conflict throughout the story. Not the usual rising and falling action that middle school teachers will point out in plot diagrams. The clearest sense of protagonist vs. antagonist stress seems to be between aging Billy and his daughter, about his possibly failing mental capacity/mental illness. A point of conflict that seems to occur not only between Billy and his daughter, but perhaps Billy and the narrator, (I think there's a reason the narrator uses the phrase, "Billy says.") and also between Billy and the audience. But in the end, it seems that even his mental state is really irrelevant.
Yet, something is still compelling about the story.
I hope this isn't too much of a jumble to read. It's a bit jumbled in my head. Perhaps someone will get it and be able to help untangle my thoughts here.

[jewishjosh]

Spoiler Warning: Whole book or so, to be safe

Doesn't the narrator say that it's an anti-war book? Is war the antagonist? As the protagonist, Billy is faced with the struggle to survive and make sense of it all without losing his head, and the war scenario poses a challenge to him, a hurdle as he tries to keep his head on his shoulders.

There is a little bit of English-class rising and falling action, i.e. each time he gets captured, moved, a minor character dies, the bombing of Dresden, etc. Each event tests Billy's resolve to go on, and his morals and perspective of reality are questioned. But it is true that this book is not linear nor plot-based, and the rise and fall of the "plot" isn't as dominant. As Billy gets shuffled around from place to place not on his own free will, the "plot" of the story takes place inside his own thoughts, not in his changing environment.

[timbot]

obligatory spoiler of the whole book variety
Yeah, the narrator does say it's an anti-war book, so war seems to be a prime suspect for antagonist, but as I said, very little fighting happens. And I don't get much sense that Billy is struggling to survive. He simply is surviving. Is his resolve ever really tested? He says many times before he's captured that he doesn't want to go on, but he never really resolves to win over the war or his own fears. And in the end, there isn't much of a resolution. War in general is not stopped. Even dealing specifically with WWII, yes it ends, but there's not much talk about winners or losers. Like so many other things in this story, it just sort of happens.
One thing I did think of. There are basically only 2 things that stick out to me as things Billy really tried to do. 1) tell people about the Tralfamadorians and 2) Tell the man in the hospital about the war, to let the man know he was there.
It's almost as if the real struggle here is not between any of the characters, so much as it is with the narrator himself and trying to write the book. Just like Billy is trying to get the old man to realize he saw the fire bombing, the narrator has a feeling that this is a story he needs to tell, though he's not really sure why. The same with the alien story. Billy wants to get it out, but can't get it to make sense to people. The narrator also seems to have a struggle with how to make sense of his experience.

[jewishjosh]

whole book
It's almost as if the real struggle here is not between any of the characters, so much as it is with the narrator himself and trying to write the book. Just like Billy is trying to get the old man to realize he saw the fire bombing, the narrator has a feeling that this is a story he needs to tell, though he's not really sure why. The same with the alien story. Billy wants to get it out, but can't get it to make sense to people. The narrator also seems to have a struggle with how to make sense of his experience.

You're absolutely right. It never made sense to me that way. Billy is, after all, a microcosm of the narrator. The fact that it is a story within a story (within a story, if you include Billy's alien encounters) is more significant than it seems.

[Matt]

See how easy it is to make a bold sentence in your post? Now try to do without being condescending.

You mods are totally sucking the fun out of this which could have been promising. Every other person who posted in this thread got TOed for discussing the book. People don't want to post in these threads if you Nazis keep banning them for doing it wrong.

For someone complaining about sucking the fun out of this, you sure aren't helping with posting shit like that. I'd just edit their post instead of banning them, but I haven't even read the book myself. It's a simple rule that everyone's gotten the hang of. Please, just follow this simple rule and you'll make this whole thing better.

[oYo]

Chapter 2

I liked the "so it goes" line as well. What I thought was clever was that he started using it before explaining about the aliens. So as I was reading the repetition of the phrase kind of stuck out to me, and then when he explained it I chuckled.

Also, I find the character of Weary absolutely brilliant. The idea of him prancing around in all his clothes and gear from home is such a great image for me. I thought it was hilarious. Reminded me of a bunch of private school boys I know.

I'm looking forward to finding out what will happen with this alien plot, and whether they will turn out to be real or not, or whether it will be left ambiguous.

[Matt]

Chapter 2

Also, I find the character of Weary absolutely brilliant. The idea of him prancing around in all his clothes and gear from home is such a great image for me. I thought it was hilarious. Reminded me of a bunch of private school boys I know.

Nice analogy. He really does seem like this pompous, spoiled prick who thinks he's better than everyone.


Chapter: 3

"Through the valley flowed a Mississippi of humiliated Americans."

I absolutely loved that line. Perfect poetic imagery.

[Cob450]

Chapter 2:

You all seem to think that the idea of the Tralfamadorians seeing time as a fourth dimension is an interesting concept, and I do to. I'm not sure if this belongs here or in some kind of philosophy thread, but how do you all see time: as objective and something one must "transcend" or only as a human mode of thinking that isn't actually the way the universe works?

[timbot]

Chapter: 3

"Through the valley flowed a Mississippi of humiliated Americans."

I absolutely loved that line. Perfect poetic imagery.

That's a good one. I really liked this one, also from Chapter 3:
"There was another long silence, with the colonel dying and dying, drowning where he stood." That description really jumped out at me.

Also, because I'm an ass sometimes, I feel like pointing out.

Rules:
...
* Make sure to tag and label your spoilers.


In fact, if you use the spoiler warnings, you want have to use those tags at all!

If you're gonna be a hard ass on rules, at least don't contradict yourselves.

Back to the book, now Chapter 4:
I thought it was pretty interesting that Billy knows he's going to be picked up by the aliens even before it happens. There is also a lot of imagery that is repeated in his Tralfamadorian encounter and his transport to the prison camp. There is a mention of a barking dog in both. The Russians compel the prisoners off the train by use of light and cooing like doves. Billy is compelled to board the spaceship, and there are several mentions of light, and also an owl sound. Not exactly the same, but I still think pretty similar. He also says that the building where they get their showers looks a lot like a Tralfamadorian building. It has a very dream-like feeling to me. That idea of little details from your real life getting pulled into your dreams and transformed slightly. Could be some insight into the whole experience with the aliens.
Also, I know there is repetition of the orange and black stripes of his daughter's wedding tent. I didn't see it in chapter 4, so perhaps it's later. I can't remember now what else ends up being orange and black like that...anyone know?

[oYo]

Chapters 3 and 4

timbot - the train carrying the prisoners in Chapter 3 has the orange and black stripes, is that what you were thinking of? "The locomotive and the last car of each train were marked with a striped banner of orange and black, indicating that the train was not fair game for airplanes - that it was carrying prisoners of war".

The whole alien thing is still weird for me. I've never been a fan of science fiction, or space, or aliens. I'm interested to see where he goes with it, because it could make or break the book for me.

[timbot]

Yes, the train is what I was thinking about. Thanks for the help oYo. That's just one more similarity between the night he was picked up by the Tralfamadorians and his time on the train. Which may give some clues to figuring out whether they're real or not.

[Cob450]

Chapter 4
I like when he opens the champaign and says that it's dead, he says "So it goes" even for that.
I also loved how he came "slightly unstuck in time" and watched the movie backward, and the description of the movie was very sad in showing the opposite of how it really was, showing people as nice and healing each other and "hiding [the minerals from the bombs] cleverly, so they would never hurt anyone ever again." It was really touching, in a way.

Chapters 3 and 5
I think along with the orange and black stripes corresponding between the train and the Tralfamadorians, the part in chapter 5 when he starts reading lots of science fiction as a way to deal with finding life meaningless shows, at least to me, that he is going crazy and just subconsciously using images and motifs from his life to justify the Tralfamadorians. Although the fact that he knows the Tralfamadorians are coming before they actually do kind of makes me think he does travel through time. But he may just think he knew they were coming because he had subconsciously projected it into his memory.

[INTUNEevolution]

To me, time and emotions and all of these things are human constructs, viewed only by the individual. The universe is above it and does not care for these things.

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/bankamp/)
Reason: You already got in trouble for not reading the book, and you're still posting useless crap

[Mdotcooley]

I don't know how this could be better organized but it just seems like since there are so many different reading speeds that maybe it should be divided up into chapters that people can post on. like you read a chapter then go post.... read a chapter etc. it would be nice to have a separate section of the forum for this and then have stickies for the chapters. that way you would not have to worry about the spoilers because you would only post in the chapter # sticky. I think this would clear up a lot of confusion and you would not have to put so many people on time out.

[Mdotcooley]

Chapter 3
The imagery of the soldiers thrown in the boxcars is very graphic it almost makes me sick when they are talking about shitting in helmets and passing it out through the vent holes. Personifying the train as an organism that gets food and water and excretes piss and shit is also very vivid.

[Banthis]

I've read the whole book, so possible spoilers of all chapters lay ahead
I would have to agree with you Cob450, the death of the bottle of champagne is great. It seems that all things, animated or not, are capable of life and death to Billy.

Did anybody else find the prediction of Billy's own death a little odd? It's the only part of Billy's life that does not seem to fit. The way in which is occurs is impossible and more than likely is only a prediction by Billy as to how he died. I don't think he's actually seen his own death, which leads me to wonder at what point in Billy's life did he actually write this famous Dresden book that we are now reading?

[timbot]

I've read the whole book, so possible spoilers of all chapters lay ahead
I would have to agree with you Cob450, the death of the bottle of champagne is great. It seems that all things, animated or not, are capable of life and death to Billy.


Did anybody else find the prediction of Billy's own death a little odd? It's the only part of Billy's life that does not seem to fit. The way in which is occurs is impossible and more than likely is only a prediction by Billy as to how he died. I don't think he's actually seen his own death, which leads me to wonder at what point in Billy's life did he actually write this famous Dresden book that we are now reading?

The same chapters as the quote above...that means all of them
Hmmm...what chapter did he predict his death? I don't remember that part now. Now, perhaps I'm just forgetful and someone will set me straight, but Billy didn't write a famous book about Dresden. The story we're reading isn't written by Billy, it's by someone else. The narrator is a different character (I think it's pretty safe to say the narrator is actually supposed to be Vonnegut).

[SealPunter]

Symbols in the story

Anyone else notice how many times he uses symbols?

For instance, the use of colors is fantastic, specifically blue and purple, we see a lot of this.

Another significant one I saw was the bullet-proof bible. To me, it is saying that it can save his life physically, and spiritually, it is clever, really, if you think about it. Well thats just a bit of conversation to get something going here.


Chapter 6 (i think, not ruining anything)

I LOVED how Vonnegut threw himself into the novel as that he defines himself as the science fiction writer in a sense, then uses the guy to say how he drunk dials people when he can't think of stuff to write. The great part about it is that we see Billy get drunk dialed, kind of coming full circle on who is who and how he is establishing it.

[person]

I had some small trouble figuring out which characters were which in regards to Billy Pilgrim and the author of the book.

I forget what chapters all of this is from so, ALL CHAPTERS
I definitely loved the first time he uses "So it goes" for an inanimate object (the champaigne). Also, I felt like Vonnegut was trying to make some parallel between the POW train and Billy Pilgrim's daughters wedding with the orange and black stripes but I couldn't fully understand it. Perhaps he was trying to show that Billy Pilgrim was mixing his memories together because he was in fact going crazy? I mean honestly, who would have a black and orange wedding tent? I'm probably just thinking too far into it though.
I didn't completely love the ending of the book but in retrospect, I suppose I wouldn't have the slightest clue when to end a book that jumps through time. The more i thought about it, the more I liked that he didn't end the book with Billy's death like most would think to do.

[amjoyce]

Just finished the book tonight and I have to say that I was far from impressed.

SPOILER: Whole Book

I found the millipede image to be a fairly powerful tool. Describing life as a continuous being with the legs of a baby as the tail and the head as an ever-extending, ever-growing entity that slowly morphs into legacy of our lives. The description lent a sort of deja vu because I've heard something similar before. The image really fit into the way that the book skipped around in time because each separate event was simply a part of the whole and didn't require a linear progression to make sense.

Also, I mulled over the following found on pages 103-104 (25th anniversary hardback, ch. 5 I think)

"...He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low.
But the Gospels actually taught this:
Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected. So it goes."

Any thoughts on this and the bullet proof bible mentioned earlier?

[timbot]

Responses to the three previous post--just chapters 5-6.
Hmmm...I didn't really see much symbolism in the bullet-proof Bible. Or, at least not any that Vonnegut put into it. Such things did exist, and the thought behind them really was that it could save your life physically and spiritually, as Seal Punter said.

Chapter 6 (i think, not ruining anything)

I LOVED how Vonnegut threw himself into the novel as that he defines himself as the science fiction writer in a sense, then uses the guy to say how he drunk dials people when he can't think of stuff to write. The great part about it is that we see Billy get drunk dialed, kind of coming full circle on who is who and how he is establishing it.
Interesting thought, but what makes you think that character is supposed to be Vonnegut? I didn't get that impression at all, but perhaps you picked up on something I didn't.

Also, I felt like Vonnegut was trying to make some parallel between the POW train and Billy Pilgrim's daughters wedding with the orange and black stripes but I couldn't fully understand it. Perhaps he was trying to show that Billy Pilgrim was mixing his memories together because he was in fact going crazy? I mean honestly, who would have a black and orange wedding tent? I'm probably just thinking too far into it though.
I don't think you're reading too much into it at all. I had the same thoughts. I posted them up at the top of this page, so I won't post again.
And with SealPunter's colors, I remember the blue and ivory of the feet. And kept trying to figure out if there was some real symbolism, but decided it was just repetition. I don't remember purple, though. Care to elaborate on your thoughts?

Also, I mulled over the following found on pages 103-104 (25th anniversary hardback, ch. 5 I think)

"...He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low.
But the Gospels actually taught this:
Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected. So it goes."

I like when the alien continues on to explain where this thought came from. The idea that the readers know Jesus is the son of God so when he's put on the cross, they think: "Oh, boy--they sure picked the wrong guy to lynch that time!
And that thought had a brother: 'There are right people to lynch.' Who? People not well connected. So it goes."
I really think this is pretty insightful, and doesn't just pertain to the Gospel part of the Bible, but also the Old Testament and the Jews. Why was it so terrible to mess with the Jews? Because no man should be a slave to another and be mistreated? Well, not if that man happens to be a member of God's chosen people. If you mess with them, get ready for plagues and a parted sea crashing down on the heads of your soldiers.

And, since I haven't touched on enough topics in this post: why were you unimpressed, amyjoyce?

[oYo]

Whole book

The lead up to the death of the high school teacher "Poor old Edgar Derby" was something that impacted me. It kept being mentioned that he was die, and he was always referred to as poor and old. I thought that this was Vonnegut's way of desensitising us to death (like with the constant repetition of "So it goes" - does that desensitise us or just draw our attention to all the death in the book?) but then when he actually does die, it's for something so petty, and so near to the end of the war, that it did make me quite sad for him. That's something that's stuck in my mind.

I also loved the epitaph in chapter 5. It took me by surprise and made me smile.

I didn't think the narrator was Vonnegut either. I think he's just created a story within another story.

And I found the ending disappointing too, but now that I think about it, it would have been predictable having it end with Billy's death. I guess it shows the triviality of time. I expected it would end with something though, whether it was a big event or some closure or whatever.

[timbot]

Chapter 1
My thought is that Vonnegut is the narrator. Chapter 1 is written in first person, and the narrator promises to name the book The Children's Crusade, which is the subtitle of Slaughterhouse-Five, and Slaughterhouse-Five is dedicated to Mary O'Hare, which is the name of the person who gives the title to the narrator. And, Vonnegut really was there during the fire bombing.

Chapter 10
I thought the ending was good. After all, this is supposed to be a book about the fire bombing of Dresden, not really about Billy Pilgrim. So, personally, I like that it ends back in Dresden not long after the bombing.

[amjoyce]

The reason I was not impressed was due to the fact that I took almost nothing from this book whatsoever. If not for the fact that it only took 2hrs. to read and the fact that it was this months selection, I doubt I would have finished it (and I've made my way through some shitty books). I just really didn't see much of a reason for this book.

[SealPunter]

Responses to the three previous post--just chapters 5-6.Interesting thought, but what makes you think that character is supposed to be Vonnegut? I didn't get that impression at all, but perhaps you picked up on something I didn't.


Yeah, Vonnegut puts himself into every single one of his novels(or at least as many as I have read[6]). I guess you would have to be an avid reader to understand some of his common tools of involvement. One thing he often does is drunk-dials people when he is writing. It is a known fact to us Vonnegut readers, and if there is any hint at it, we pick up on it. But hey, this is your first book of his! So maybe you will get as hooked as I did.


Also, just letting everyone know, Slaughter-House Five is one of Vonnegut's.... worst books.

[Liteboy]

Comment and Chapter 6

Chapter 2:

You all seem to think that the idea of the Tralfamadorians seeing time as a fourth dimension is an interesting concept, and I do to. I'm not sure if this belongs here or in some kind of philosophy thread, but how do you all see time: as objective and something one must "transcend" or only as a human mode of thinking that isn't actually the way the universe works?

People can't see time andI think that this is why,as Vonnegut writes, "people aren't supposed to look back." We are creatures of 3 dimensions, if we were 4 dimensional we could see back in time but since this is not an ability we have , it is something we're supposed to do.

i've not got a copy of the book with me anymore, but did anyone else think that Vonnegut's use of aliens and a non linear plot line was just as he found it hard to deal with writing about what actually happened to him? the subject matter of this is what makes it a fantastic book, but i'd not say it was as well written as maybe breakfast of champions, or cats cradle.

The idea of Vonnegut using the story and Billy Pilgrim to help himself cope is rather strong I would say. I think this is exactly why he writes himself into the story a few times, saying he was the one of the soldiers in the train car and in chapter 6 when Billy gets a call from the drunken Vonnegut whose breath smells like " mustard gas and roses."

[Liteboy]

Yeah, Vonnegut puts himself into every single one of his novels(or at least as many as I have read[6]). I guess you would have to be an avid reader to understand some of his common tools of involvement. One thing he often does is drunk-dials people when he is writing. It is a known fact to us Vonnegut readers, and if there is any hint at it, we pick up on it. But hey, this is your first book of his! So maybe you will get as hooked as I did.


Also, just letting everyone know, Slaughter-House Five is one of Vonnegut's.... worst books.

General Vonnegut Spoiler.
Not to go too far off topic but I want to comment on that idea of Vonnegut putting himself in each of his novels. I've read all of Vonneguts earlier works and I noticed how in almost each one he mentions the sci-fi writer Kilgore Trout. Am I right to think that this is supposed to be both the character he uses to write himself in AND the image K.V has for himself, an under appreciated writer?

ATTN TIMBOT:
blue and ivory is a symbol of death if I remember correctly.

[person]

Chapter 1
My thought is that Vonnegut is the narrator. Chapter 1 is written in first person, and the narrator promises to name the book The Children's Crusade, which is the subtitle of Slaughterhouse-Five, and Slaughterhouse-Five is dedicated to Mary O'Hare, which is the name of the person who gives the title to the narrator. And, Vonnegut really was there during the fire bombing.

I didn't originally see that Vonnegut had written himself in, I somewhat assumed that like the other person said, it was a story inside a story but since you point all that out, it makes perfect sense.

[Chapter 10
I thought the ending was good. After all, this is supposed to be a book about the fire bombing of Dresden, not really about Billy Pilgrim. So, personally, I like that it ends back in Dresden not long after the bombing.

I concur. I've thought about the ending quite a bit and I suppose it was only right for the book to end when the bombing ended in Dresden. With the end of the war. It just wouldn't have made much sense to end the book with his death since according to him, his death isn't the end.

[timbot]

Yeah, Vonnegut puts himself into every single one of his novels(or at least as many as I have read[6]). I guess you would have to be an avid reader to understand some of his common tools of involvement. One thing he often does is drunk-dials people when he is writing. It is a known fact to us Vonnegut readers, and if there is any hint at it, we pick up on it. But hey, this is your first book of his! So maybe you will get as hooked as I did.


Also, just letting everyone know, Slaughter-House Five is one of Vonnegut's.... worst books.

Not to be an ass, but that wasn't at all helpful. Why is it a known fact, and what are these hints. If he has common tools, could you point them out?
Also, when you said "the sci-fi author" I assumed you meant Kilgor Trout, but isn't the narrator of the story the one who talks about drunk-dialing? So, are you saying that Kilgor Trout is supposed to be Vonnegut, or the narrator is? Or both? I guess I'm just confused. I would greatly appreciate some clarification.

amyjoyce: I understand what you're saying about not taking much away from this book. I feel that way a little bit, too. It's quick and pretty easy to read, and at times interesting, but once it's all over, I hardly feel like I read anything. Though, I'd have to say it's much better than the few books that I've ever given up on reading. I'm not blown away by this book, but I think it's a decent read.

[Liteboy]

Not to be an ass, but that wasn't at all helpful. Why is it a known fact, and what are these hints. If he has common tools, could you point them out?
Also, when you said "the sci-fi author" I assumed you meant Kilgor Trout, but isn't the narrator of the story the one who talks about drunk-dialing? So, are you saying that Kilgor Trout is supposed to be Vonnegut, or the narrator is? Or both? I guess I'm just confused. I would greatly appreciate some clarification.

amyjoyce: I understand what you're saying about not taking much away from this book. I feel that way a little bit, too. It's quick and pretty easy to read, and at times interesting, but once it's all over, I hardly feel like I read anything. Though, I'd have to say it's much better than the few books that I've ever given up on reading. I'm not blown away by this book, but I think it's a decent read.

I guess my post wasn't clear enough.

It is only my belief that in other books Kilgore = Vonnegut. I'm fairly certain of it because it seems so and it is presented so often throughout his works.

I would also say it is safe to say that he is the narrator in this book. But it could be a use of meta fiction (fiction within a work of fiction). The story is as much about an author telling a story as it is about Billy but still its not so clear if lines like "that was me" come up in the narration whether that is meant to be Vonnegut or not.

Do you follow. If not, just try to consider Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried

[NVM]

Chapters 1-3.
I've actually had this book since the end of February but I wanted to finish another book before I started this one.
The first chapter had me a bit confused as I didn't hardly know much about this book and wasn't sure if the story was about this guy writing a book about Dresden. Well I learned that this was pretty much an extended introduction(assuming the narrator is Vonnegut) but is still well written and entertaining. Then Chapter 2 hits and Boom, it's all about time travel and aliens. When the story actually follows Billy in WW2 I started to care about 'em because he was pretty much the biggest anti-hero ever and I think he just crazy from the plane crash. But the whole Time is 4th dimension thing is really interesting and I hope they look farther into that. I also love Vonnegut's humor it's not very blatant but it's unique.

[person]

Chapters 1-3.I also love Vonnegut's humor it's not very blatant but it's unique.

In my opinion, Vonnegut's dry humor is one of the greatest things about this book. The situational comedy in the book is so good at some parts. I can't think of any particular examples right now though and I lent the book out.

[oYo]

Whole Book

I think a lot of the humour lies in the absolute ridiculous situation during the war. Vonnegut does a really good job of making the war parts touching yet amusing at the same time. An example is of the English POW's who have made a lovely situation for themselves in this awful context, and have the time and good spirits to do things like put on a play and dinner to welcome new arrivals to where they are being held prisoner. It's just crazy enough to be believable, and that makes it funny.

[amjoyce]

SPOILER: Chaper 2-5

I found the whole situation in the PoW camp with the Cinderella thing humorous. Don't know why considering the thought of a bunch of grown men performing it is...odd... to say the least.

[Matt]

Chapter 4-6:

Billy knows about time traveling. He knows how everything ends. He knows that the high school teacher will die and continually alludes to it. But this knowledge just makes him seem more sad and apathetic. Rather than trying to do something like warn the teacher, he does nothing. "So it goes."

When he wakes up in the POW camp hospital shack, the emanating radiation from his coat tickles his curiosity in a very peculiar way. But then he is "told" to not see what it is. He believes in free will (or at least did at one point), but his encounter with the aliens numbed him. After that, he just became this apathetic man who floats by and lets things happen.

I can only guess this is Vonnegut saying how the war changed Billy. After what he had seen, he just didn't care anymore. Rather than doing something, he just sits in his basement freezing his ass off, but doesn't even notice.

[Ox]

Woah, this is quite a coincidence. The Supt. at my work just gave me this to read because it's his favourite book, I finished it today and it's in an Explosm book club! I burned through it pretty quickly because it's small. So it goes.

Things to note throughout the book:

Blue and Ivory
Black and Orange
A big dog barking.

They recur throughout the novel, I was wondering if anyone else drew the same connections as me.

[timbot]

Woah, this is quite a coincidence. The Supt. at my work just gave me this to read because it's his favourite book, I finished it today and it's in an Explosm book club! I burned through it pretty quickly because it's small. So it goes.

Things to note throughout the book:

Blue and Ivory
Black and Orange
A big dog barking.

They recur throughout the novel, I was wondering if anyone else drew the same connections as me.

Yeah, we talked a little about the colors above. Nothing horribly in-depth. What's your take on those recurrent images?

[opn4bzns]

General Vonnegut Spoiler.
Not to go too far off topic but I want to comment on that idea of Vonnegut putting himself in each of his novels. I've read all of Vonneguts earlier works and I noticed how in almost each one he mentions the sci-fi writer Kilgore Trout. Am I right to think that this is supposed to be both the character he uses to write himself in AND the image K.V has for himself, an under appreciated writer?


General Vonnegut Spoiler too.
I'm not sure Kilgore does represent him exactly, because I seem to recall Vonnegut and him meeting in one book (Cat's Cradle maybe?). Also, the roles that Kilgore plays keep changing. In Galapagos he's the main character's father.

More off topically, we get to read SH5 for school. Neat.

[Matt]

Woah, this is quite a coincidence. The Supt. at my work just gave me this to read because it's his favourite book, I finished it today and it's in an Explosm book club! I burned through it pretty quickly because it's small. So it goes.

Things to note throughout the book:

Blue and Ivory
Black and Orange
A big dog barking.

They recur throughout the novel, I was wondering if anyone else drew the same connections as me.

Especially the use of black and orange at the wedding. It gave the scene a totally different meaning.

Note to self: it's a good idea to keep the book after you've finished it so quoting is doable.

[History]

Chapter 4-6
Chapter 4-6:

Billy knows about time traveling. He knows how everything ends. He knows that the high school teacher will die and continually alludes to it. But this knowledge just makes him seem more sad and apathetic. Rather than trying to do something like warn the teacher, he does nothing. "So it goes."


I agree, but according to the logic in this book, had Billy tried to warn the high school teacher about his death it wouldn't have mattered. The teacher still would have died (so it goes). Essentially, Billy could not have warned the high school teacher because it never happened in time, and as we see, free-will does not actually exist (in the context of the book).

[timbot]

Chapter 4-6
Yeah, exactly how I see it, History. It's the dilemma that always comes with knowledge of the future. If the future is known, what can be done? Knowledge of the future means that there is no free will, and therefore, you can't blame someone for doing or not doing something. That person has no choice, he simply does what he does. And if you try to fight it, it's still going to happen. Like Oedipus and the characters of so many other Greek plays and myths.

[Matt]

Chapter 4-6:

I guess it's just my unwillingness to accept the fact the he's unable to change anything. His total acceptance, and him being totally fine with it, still makes him seem apathetic towards the idea. Rather than "I wish I could do something but I know I can't." he gives us "He's gonna die. Oh well!"

[History]

Chapter Warning: Obligatory Whole Book Themes Spoiler

Well Matt, you also raise an interesting point that people have touched on, but haven't really gone in depth about. Someone asked earlier if Billy was crazy or if the aliens really exist. The speculation leaned towards the idea that it doesn't matter because it doesn't detract from the story. I think it does matter, for your reasoning above. Maybe free will does actually exist within the context of Slaughterhouse 5, but Billy did not act at all whatsoever during the war perhaps out of simple fear or apathy. If he is crazy, rather than the only person seeing the truth, than perhaps his ideas of time and lack of free will are his ways of coping with his passivity during the war. I don't know if this makes any sense, I'm having trouble thinking around this in my head.

[oYo]

Chapter 4-6

Yeah, Billy is very much a passive character, like someone said before. But I actually like that about him. There are so many texts about people trying to fight the inevitable or refusing to stand back and let things happen. It's nice to have this protagonist who just kind of goes with the flow.

I also think that the context of war plays a role in this. I mean, you can fight all you like but the fact of the matter is a lot of people are going to die in war and there's nothing you can do about it. I thought it was really interesting that we don't get any real combat scenes in the book. It really highlights the pointless deaths that happen in a war - like the people who died on the train etc. For me it really brought home the point that these deaths were pointless - it wasn't people dying valiantly fighting for their country, they were just gone all of a sudden. So it goes.

I also agree with Matt's note to self. I returned the book to the library and therefore apologise for my lack of quoting and specific examples.

[Matt]

Chapter: whole damn thing

I really don't know enough about Vonnegut to make a conclusion like this, but the entire Billy character and this story of him becoming completely numb to the atrocities going on around him and apathetic towards doing anything about it could just be one big overarching metaphor about the war. oYo touched on it above about the pointlessness in war.

It's also like he's putting himself in Billy's shoes in a way. To everyone else, going to war and losing lives is necessary. To those who believe the opposite, you're just as crazy as somebody who believes in aliens and time travel.

[timbot]

Chapter Warning: Obligatory Whole Book Themes Spoiler

Well Matt, you also raise an interesting point that people have touched on, but haven't really gone in depth about. Someone asked earlier if Billy was crazy or if the aliens really exist. The speculation leaned towards the idea that it doesn't matter because it doesn't detract from the story. I think it does matter, for your reasoning above. Maybe free will does actually exist within the context of Slaughterhouse 5, but Billy did not act at all whatsoever during the war perhaps out of simple fear or apathy. If he is crazy, rather than the only person seeing the truth, than perhaps his ideas of time and lack of free will are his ways of coping with his passivity during the war. I don't know if this makes any sense, I'm having trouble thinking around this in my head.

More whole book thematic discussion

Interesting point about his passivity. But, we can't forget that Billy is supposed to be non-combat personnel. He's a chaplain or chaplain's assistant...something like that, I don't remember for sure now. I get the feeling that he's not so much passive by choice, out of fear or apathy, but more passive simple because what else is he going to do? His response upon arriving at the front lines--wanting to go home, not knowing what to do--is probably more realistic than him getting up there and suddenly being filled with some heroism and the ability to use a gun. He's a scared kid, and I would imagine that most of us would react very much the same way in his situation. Then, when he's captured and becomes a POW...what is he supposed to do? Can we look down on him for not doing more? What more was there to do but just exist? If he's trying to cope with his passivity, that would seem to suppose that he feels guilty for the way he acted. I don't think he is.
I think what he's trying to deal with is actually the senselessness of the war and all the death he saw around him. This is a story about war, but there's never any real mention of strategy from either side. The prisoners are taken and kept and then eventually released, then one of them gets killed for stealing a tea pot? There's not much explanation for WHY things are done...they just are. I'm not a military guy, but I imagine that this is much what it's like to be a soldier out on the ground. You might have some clue why you're doing things, some vague ideas of "this will hurt the enemy." But the focus for your average soldier is on obeying orders, not asking questions. Billy is stuck in a situation where he's not getting orders even. Things are simply happening, and he probably doesn't understand why they're happening, and you can never be sure what my be the cause of your death. It could be lagging behind, or it could be running ahead like the snipers Billy was with early on, or like we've pointed out, just stealing a teapot. That's a lot of stuff to deal with.
And that is why we have all this business about aliens and free will. And if that is what he's trying to deal with, instead of his actions (or lack of action), then it really doesn't matter if he's insane or not. Either way he's using it as a coping mechanism, as a way to understand the war. He's got to be able to handle this in his mind, and, at least for purposes of this story, it doesn't matter if the aliens are real or not. Also, if the only options are "the aliens are real" or "he's gone insane." We can't hold either side against him, because if the aliens are real, he knows the truth. If the aliens are fake, but he's insane, it's not by his own choice that he believes what he believes. If he knows the truth, you can't condemn him for following it, and if he has no choice, he can't be condemned for his actions.

[Matt]

Chapter: everything

Great couple of points, Tim. I do see where you're coming from about how he's expected to be passive, given his position and experience and whatnot, but even then, just standing in the street while he's being shot at is overwhelmingly passive. Not being one to fight is one thing, but not doing a damn thing while your party is being shot at is a fair ways beyond that.

[Banthis]

I just seen the latest episode of the Lost (season 4 episode 5 :D ) and the character Desmond becomes "unstuck in time", they also describe it in those words. :D

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/bankamp/)
Reason: Thread shitting.

So I know, this guy was put in a time out for this post and more than likely I'll get the same. I've just finished watching the latest episode of lost and during a scene, the character Michael has the TV turned on to some game show. You can't quite hear the question that is asked, but the answer was in fact "Kurt Vonnegut".

On another note, I find the concept of time in this book to be very interesting. Perhaps, we can turn a part of this discussion away from the literary tools of Vonnegut and discuss the philosophy presented in his book. Are there people out there who generally believe that time and free will are basically irrelevant? I haven't read too much on this author, but are these his beliefs that he's putting in to his book? Or is he simply presenting a possibly theory?

USER WAS PUT IN TIMEOUT FOR THIS POST. (http://forums.explosm.net/bankamp/)
Reason: You know not to reply, acknowledged you'd get banned for responding, but did anyways. Take a week off, retard.

[megynn]

Chapter: Everything


Great couple of points, Tim. I do see where you're coming from about how he's expected to be passive, given his position and experience and whatnot, but even then, just standing in the street while he's being shot at is overwhelmingly passive. Not being one to fight is one thing, but not doing a damn thing while your party is being shot at is a fair ways beyond that.

Is his standing in the street while being shot at really being passive, or is it just a byproduct of his increasingly slipping grasp of reality (assuming he's going insane)? I can't find this exact event in the book, but isn't he often in a little bit of a fog after he makes a time jump (assuming he's not going insane)?

There were a couple of things I didn't really notice at first, but looking through the book again they really stuck out. For example: Billy found the diamond and the partial denture in the coat in the POW camp. I knew the diamond was for Valencia's engagement ring, but a few paragraphs after the sentence saying Billy got her diamond in the war, there's another sentence that says "Billy brushed his teeth on Tralfamadore, put in his partial denture, and went into his kitchen." I can't decide if there's any significance to this. Thoughts?

Another parallel I found that I'm not sure of the relevance is the Serenity Prayer. In chapter 3, it says that Billy has the Serenity Prayer framed and on the wall of his office, and at the very end of chapter 9, it's on Montana's locket.

I'm thinking that the fact that he sees these things both on Earth and on Tralfamadore indicate that Tralfamadore isn't real, but just a retreat he goes to in his mind, with some of the comforting things from home. Earth is painful (even for a seemingly unfeeling/apathetic person as Billy) but Tralfamadore is easy, safe, and eventually comfortable.

[timbot]

Chapter: Everything



Is his standing in the street while being shot at really being passive, or is it just a byproduct of his increasingly slipping grasp of reality (assuming he's going insane)? I can't find this exact event in the book, but isn't he often in a little bit of a fog after he makes a time jump (assuming he's not going insane)?

There were a couple of things I didn't really notice at first, but looking through the book again they really stuck out. For example: Billy found the diamond and the partial denture in the coat in the POW camp. I knew the diamond was for Valencia's engagement ring, but a few paragraphs after the sentence saying Billy got her diamond in the war, there's another sentence that says "Billy brushed his teeth on Tralfamadore, put in his partial denture, and went into his kitchen." I can't decide if there's any significance to this. Thoughts?

Another parallel I found that I'm not sure of the relevance is the Serenity Prayer. In chapter 3, it says that Billy has the Serenity Prayer framed and on the wall of his office, and at the very end of chapter 9, it's on Montana's locket.

I'm thinking that the fact that he sees these things both on Earth and on Tralfamadore indicate that Tralfamadore isn't real, but just a retreat he goes to in his mind, with some of the comforting things from home. Earth is painful (even for a seemingly unfeeling/apathetic person as Billy) but Tralfamadore is easy, safe, and eventually comfortable.

That's how I generally look at the parallels between Earth and Tralfamadore. I was making basically the same point earlier when we talked a little about the repetition of different colors. He sees these things when he's "on" Tralfamadore because he knows them from his experiences on Earth. Just like your dreams will be composed of things you perhaps saw that day or had be involved with recently. If he's going insane, and basically having hallucinations, it seems pretty logical that those hallucinations would incorporate different events, objects, or colors from his real life.

[person]

Everything
That's how I generally look at the parallels between Earth and Tralfamadore. I was making basically the same point earlier when we talked a little about the repetition of different colors. He sees these things when he's "on" Tralfamadore because he knows them from his experiences on Earth. Just like your dreams will be composed of things you perhaps saw that day or had be involved with recently. If he's going insane, and basically having hallucinations, it seems pretty logical that those hallucinations would incorporate different events, objects, or colors from his real life.

That's basically what I was going to say. Billy is simply going crazy and mixing his memories from the war and the rest of his life into his fantasy of time-traveling Tralfamadorians. One of the most obvious examples to me was that Montana was on Tralfamador with him and that later in the book, he recalls having seen her in that store that he looked at the sci-fi books in. Also, I noticed that not many of you mentioned the fact that he READ sci-fi books with such things as, oh, I don't know, time-traveling aliens?
Anyway, I really wish somebody had more insight into the parallel between the POW train and Billy's daughters wedding. I thought that maybe Billy had been going so crazy that he had mixed one reality with another, rather than mixing reality with fiction. Anybody?

[Audioslave]

General Vonnegut Spoiler too.
I'm not sure Kilgore does represent him exactly, because I seem to recall Vonnegut and him meeting in one book (Cat's Cradle maybe?). Also, the roles that Kilgore plays keep changing. In Galapagos he's the main character's father.

More off topically, we get to read SH5 for school. Neat.

You're thinking of Breakfast of Champions. Kurt Vonnegut is not Kilgore Trout.

[timbot]

You're thinking of Breakfast of Champions. Kurt Vonnegut is not Kilgore Trout.

I'm glad someone is saying this. I couldn't say it very convincingly, because I've only read Slaughterhouse-Five, but I was not getting this apparent connection between Vonnegut and Trout that some people were talking about.

[schlachthof.funf]

I'm glad someone is saying this. I couldn't say it very convincingly, because I've only read Slaughterhouse-Five, but I was not getting this apparent connection between Vonnegut and Trout that some people were talking about.

I've read in several places (can't remember exactly where) that Kilgore is Vonnegut's alterego. I think one of the sources was in a book/essay of Vonnegut's.

[Audioslave]

I'm glad someone is saying this. I couldn't say it very convincingly, because I've only read Slaughterhouse-Five, but I was not getting this apparent connection between Vonnegut and Trout that some people were talking about.

Yeah, I wouldn't deny that Trout is his Alterego, but that wasn't the question. They're not the same person. I think Vonnegut created Trout as a sort of dystopian present that would have existed had he not succeeded, writing odd science fiction stories for smut magazines. Trout is definitely not Vonnegut, but they have similarities. Though truthfully, I think alot of the characters reflect Vonnegut in some way. There are some clear similarities; most of his characters are rather meek and indifferent at most things. They are usually widowed, divorced, or in a unexciting marriage. They are all involved in a weird predicament and are generally looked down on because of it.

[NVM]

Chapter: Rest of Book

So when I made my last post in this thread I thought this book was pretty good read but nothing incredibly special. But now that I've finished it it is probably one of my favorites. The end when Billy was in the book store and everything comes together and the final chapter says so much about war, just made it tick. I'm defiantly going to start reading more Vonnegut.

[Matt]

Interesting article in Salon recently about Vonnegut and Slaughterhouse Five:
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/04/07/vonnegut/


Lots of interesting tidbits like:

I used to pretend, even to myself, that I was deeply sorry about Dresden, tinkered with the idea of writing a book about the massacre with neatly underplayed indignation. But these things happen and there is no stopping them, so the hell with them.


Worth a read.

[oceaneyes]

This book is worth a read...but you all are overanalyzing it.
Vonnegut used Billy to show the horror of war. He went insane, due to the bombing of Dresden. That is the reason behind the aliens, and Trout. He used everything that happened to Billy, and all of the characters as a vessel to share his idea about War in general. I don’t think there were any alter ego's.
Vonnegut is not Poe, nor was he really all that deep.

[timbot]

What does Poe have to do with this?
I don't think we overanalyzed this story. Most of the stuff discussed in here was not any kind of far stretch or analytical thinking. You, on the other hand, gave a completely generic synopsis of the novel, that could be used to talk about any written work. "[Author] used [plot] and [characters] to share his idea about [subject]." Amazing. Using your insightful device I was able to finally realize that Shakespeare used everything that happened to Romeo and Juliette to share his idea about love.
And that master of insight, Poe, used Montressor and his deception of Fortunato to show his[Poe's] idea about vengeance.

[Matt]

"[Author] used [plot] and [characters] to share his idea about [subject]."

Ahahaha. I love you Timbot.