I present to you Marié's blog!
Here is the link:
To start off, I gotta say, the visuals and media clips are incredible! I first came across this blog two days ago during our last blogging session in the library. The first thing that I saw was the Tralfamadorian animation which left me completely amazed. (Marié, you've got to show me how to make these one day!) I found your welcoming post, "Here you are, trapped in another blob of amber. It was your fate to read this," really clever; it is a great portrayal of the Tralfamadorians' perspective. I also like the play on word "blobbing" for "blogging". Now without further ado, let's get started with the analysis.
I've always been a partisan of "free will" until I read this post. I believed that the every thought and action of an individual results in the present state of his or her life. However, after reading Marié's explanation of "[w]hen a person is born, the place into which they entered will somewhat define how they will live their life, and thus the person they become," it made me rethink my position. I, too, find validity in Rachel and Anna's argument that if "a person may be born into a not-so-opportunistic life that they can still do as well, if not better, than a person that is born into a wealthy family with lots of opportunity." An individual's upbringing may play a minimal role in the process, but their future is ultimately dependent on personal choices. For example, my dad came from a very poor family. His parents urged him to find a job after graduating high school but he stubbornly refused. Instead, he chose to attend university and study English, which he loved. Without his firm decision, my family would not be here in Canada right now.
I really like the hot fudge sundae analogy! I totally agree that SH5 is a "mushy mess of strong emotions". In addition to that, I think Vonnegut had a hard time organizing his life story in a coherent way. He even said so himself, it took him over 20 years to write this war novel!
However, I think it's fair game that critics are attacking his story. It's likely due to the fact the book condemns Americans, whereas we are peace-loving Canadians. Since we are from a different nation, we may not feel the same shock as patriotic Americans would feel after reading the book. What it really boils down to is the difference in cultural views.
I do think there are few elements that Billy and Vonnegut have in common, but not to the extent that "Billy Pilgrim might even be Vonnegut." I'd argue that Vonnegut has a lot more depth to his personality than Billy. Vonnegut took great risks in writing this novel. He possibly wanted to prevent or minimize war efforts by highlighting the abominable nature of it. Bill, however, was a mere "dummy" who allowed to be pushed around by others and accepted life as it came.
Lastly, here are some more similarities that I came up with:
- Many of Billy and Vonnegut's family members died untimely deaths
- They were both highly educated people (attended university after the war and received degrees)
Religion
SH5 did not condemn religion at any point, nor did it try to impose any religious views on readers. I think the critics are wrong to say that religion was negatively portrayed in SH5. Instead, the theme of fate in the novel even works in religion's favour. Many times, the characters insisted that life was predetermined and nothing could be done to change it. This is extremely similar to having a higher power dictate the lives of mankind, which is the premise of numerous religions.
Sexually Explicit
This is the part that I'm against. I think that the sexual content was gratuitous. Instances like when Billy and Montana Wildlhack "mated" in the Tralfamadorian zoo, and the detailed description of Billy and Valencia's honeymoon activities served no purpose in the book; they did not contribute any vital components to the plot or the characters. To me, these parts could have been kept out.
Obscene Language
Like Marié, I also think that the explicit language should be kept as it is, but for different reasons. It captures the dirty, cruel habits of the men in the war. For example, Weary is seen an uncultured, violent man because he constantly swore and hit Billy. Also, Lazzaro's use of expletives in his sadistic descriptions of murder and his violent death threats served to obtain a fearful and shocking reaction from the readers. Obscene language is essential to portray these ugly, but realistic events in life.
Sexism
I completely agree with Marié that the book takes place in a period when women were housewives, and men were considered the breadwinners of their families. It was simply the way of life back then; it is the truth and the truth should not be censored. This issue more so contributes to a positive development of society, rather than a hindrance to it. Though this phrase is a bit cliche, it remains true that "knowledge is power". By informing the masses about past issues, the new generation can learn from them and prevent them from occurring again.
Anti-American Sentiment
So first off, let me ask: why isn't propaganda banned? SH5 serves the same purpose, except in the opposite direction; it criticizes violence and war instead of promotes it. This should not be a matter of "anti-American sentiment" but a matter of saving lives of Americans. Now which one is more important? As I've mentioned before, SH5 effectively condemns war. Americans can still be patriotic, without having to go into combat. I am a firm believer that international issues can be dealt with in a diplomatic, non-violent way. Looking at the big picture, Vonnegut did a noble deed by getting this message out, not only for his country, but also for the rest of us.