Response to Hasnain’s blog (Gynter)

Firstly, I would like to say that Hasnain’s blog has a very nice layout and organization of topics that is very easy to follow and enjoyable to read.

I really enjoyed Hasnain’s post about where he would time travel if he had the ability to. I think a lot of people, Hasnain included, would return to times of economic recession or depression in order to play the stock market and become wealthy. Others would return to pivotal moments in history such as the American Revolutionary War to become famous commanders or generals, while some would take today’s scientific knowledge and travel back in time with it to establish themselves as one of the greatest thinkers in human history. Whatever case, I think a lot of people would simply return back in time to attain wealth, fame or power. I, on the other, hand would choose to travel to happy moments in my life. Whether it be having a good laugh in Massey cafeteria with my friends or celebrating my 5^th birthday. I would like to pose the same question to Hasnain, if he had a chance to travel back in time to any moment of his life, where would he go? Every person in the world has a favourite childhood memory. Also,what would Hasnain say to his young elf when he travels back in time? One thing is for sure though; I would not like to travel forward in time. I like the surprises that life brings me and I would not like to find out my future. I want to be able to discover it on my own.

I really enjoyed the insight that Hasnain was able to provide to the reader in his seventh post. I absolutely agree with Hasnain that Vonnegut is a very special writer. His ideas of time-travelling are not your typical Hollywood “go back in time to change the future” cliché. I would have to agree with Vonnegut that if you could travel back in time, the events are set and you already know what will happen. There is nothing you can do change them. The reason Vonnegut did not include the butterfly effect is because he believes in the idea of fate. Overall, I must say that I really enjoyed reading this post as it gave me better understanding and perspective of the how writers and Hollywood directors perceive time.

When it comes to Hansain first post, I must say that I have to disagree with it. It is very clear in the book that when Billy is placed in a mental institution, the author is trying to tell the reader that Billy is indeed mentally unstable. The amount of “detail and figurative language” that describes Billy’s time-travelling is the narrator speaking and not Billy himself. Also, it is very common for people to remember the smell of a place when recalling a certain memory. Billy is able to do it better than the rest of us because he has a vivid imagination (like most mental patients). Just like for the sake of entertainment you were able to convince yourself that Billy became unstuck in time, Billy was able to convince himself that he became unstuck in time in order to escaping the many traumatizing experiences of his life: his father’s death, his wife’s death, the bombing of Dresden, the plane crash etc… Many mental patients will create alternate realities to escape their hard life. In Billy’s case, he was abducted by aliens and slept with a beautiful actress on a different planet.   

Is Vonnegut left or right Wing? (Gynter)

As I read through Vonnegut’s work, I often wonder on what side of the political spectrum he stands on, and if he may have a political agenda as he writes this book. Judging that this in an anti-war book, I believe that Vonnegut is a left-wing thinker. As I have discussed in my earlier posts, Vonnegut despises the any glorification of war whatsoever. This is a typical view of a 1960’s peace-loving “hippie.” However, Vonnegut is no hippie. He is a World War II veteran, whose views have been shaped by firsthand accounts of war. He has seen one of the greatest atrocities in European history.
Another clue in the book that hints at his left-wing leanings is the fact that he criticizes the American psyche that hates everything that has to do with poor people. His ability to sympathize with the poor man is a socialist ideal. He believes that poor people should be helped out by the greedy upper classes, that they should not be forgotten about, neglected and given false notions that they too have a chance at being millionaires. Through his novel, Vonnegut shows poverty should not be loathed, but instead celebrated. This criticism of wealthy Americans is perhaps why his book may have been so controversial at the time. During the 1960’s The United States and the Soviet Union competed over which ideology was supreme: capitalism or socialism. Vonnegut’s socialist ideas may have been seen as dangerous to introduce to the American public and therefore strongly opposed.

Response to Blog - Hasnain (Anas)

A post in the blog which I really liked was the one which explains the best film scenes (Best Films Scenes in SH5 - Post 6). What I really enjoyed about that post was the fact that the writer not only wrote about the scene, but also described which camera shots would be used. By doing so, he enabled me to visualise what the scene would look like in the movie. Also he described three scenes in the movie that would be great in the film rather than writing about only one, which made me realise that there are many scenes which can effectively lend themselves to a movie.

A post which I disagree with is the one about the quote (Quote Assignment - Post 2). In that post, the writer says that Vonnegut is anti-American in a very subtle manner. In my opinion Vonnegut is very clear in showing that Americans were not what they were perceived to be in World War 2. In the book, by showing the condition that the British soldiers were in and directly comparing it to the Americans, Vonnegut is openly anti-American. The British are described to be calm and collected. They are well respected by the German guards and even put on a pedestal by them. Whereas the American soldiers are in a horrible condition and portrayed to be beneath the British. The Americans are poorly dressed; many of them die from hunger. Also, the British are further raised when they end up taking care of the American and providing them with necessities. This shows that the Americans are at the mercy of not only the Germans (since they are captured), but also the British since the only way that they are alive is because they are being taken care of by the British. So I think that by doing so, Vonnegut is clear about being anti-American.

A post which I would have slightly altered is the one about banned books (Banned Books - Post 3). In that post, the writer effectively explains the different types of situations that a banned book could be in. But I would have liked to see the writer write about his opinion on whether books like Slaughterhouse Five and 1984 should be banned, and explain whether he is for or against banning certain pieces of literature.  

Does Billy Pilgrim suffer from Schizophrenia? (Gynter)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_jYqSA_fJk

The first line in the book is: “All this happened, more or less.” By writing this, Vonnegut is welcoming the reader to question which parts of the book are and aren’t true.

One of the main messages, in my opinion, that Vonnegut tries to send through this book is that war is not only destructive in the physical sense, but also in the psychological sense.

Schizophrenia is a mental disorder that makes it difficult to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences, to think logically, to have normal emotional responses, and to behave normally in social situations.

We are seeing more and more cases where war veterans are suffering from this terrible disease. Vonnegut may trying to speak on behalf of the mental health of war veterans.

In my opinion, I think Billy suffers from this illness. It is important to note that Vonnegut himself uses the word schizophrenia in his novel right at the beginning. "This is a novel somewhat in the telegraphic schizophrenic manner of tales of the planet Tralfamadore, where the flying saucers come from." (p. 11) Therefore, it can be argued that Vonnegut himself wants the reader to believe that schizophrenia is an important element in his novel.

Very often, doctors will also describe schizophrenia as a special strategy that a person invents in order to live an unlivable situation (John Hopkins). According to this definition, it is rather a normal and understandable reaction to the negative environment.

Billy’s life consists of very negative and depressing phases involving a series of personal catastrophes which include the death of Billy's wife, father, his negative childhood, difficult children, the plane-crash and most importantly Billy's experiences in the war. These negative experiences are present throughout his whole life starting with his childhood. Scientists will claim that Schizophrenia is triggered early in a person’s childhood. In Billy’s case it was triggered when he was thrown at the bottom of a YMCA pool, the reason for which doctors state that he is put into a mental institution.

The narrarator also mentions that Billy first started time travelling after his plane crash. It is also possible that his mental state can be derived from the physical consequences of the plane-crash. As Billy is the only survivor, and as he seems to suffer from severe injuries of the head, one might also consider the existence of Tralfamadore a consequence of brain damage.

Another hint to the question whether Billy only imagines his time-travel experiences or not, are the novels written by Kilgore Trout. In his novel The Big Board, the fictitious character Trout narrates the story of a man and a woman being abducted to another planet and being shown in a zoo. As Billy is a fan of this author, one might conclude that he has taken a story he has once read to be real, and that he has projected the situation of Trout's characters on himself.
For a guy who imagines himself to be eating a pear as a giraffe and thinks he has slept with a famous actress on another planet, it is very probable that Billy is nothing more than a classic schizophrenia case.

Things I liked (Anas)

There are many things that I that I liked about the novel. One of the things that I particularly enjoyed was how Vonnegut used an unconventional style to write it. By using his unique style, he leaves many things in the book up to us to figure out and perceive. That way, different people perceive the ideas in different ways and there is no definite way that the story should be perceived. An example of the “flexibility” in Vonnegut’s style is the entire story behind whether Billy is actually traveling through time or just a patient of mental distress. Throughout the book, Vonnegut writes about Billy’s time travelling experiences as if he is really travelling through time. He reveals that Billy knew about events in his life before they occurred due to his abduction by the Tralfamadorians. He knew what his son would grow up to be like, his life with his wife and even the time and place of his death. On the other hand, Vonnegut hints that Billy is not actually travelling through time, but just hallucinating. Later on in his life Billy gets admitted into a mental institute, and that is around the same time he starts to “travel through time”. By having Billy in a mental institute, Vonnegut is hinting that Billy is just a patient of a mental disorder. Also, one of times when Billy travels through time, he had been drugged (in the POW camp) and by having him travel through time right when he got drugged, Vonnegut show leans towards Billy being insane and not actually travelling through time. So even though Vonnegut hints towards both possibilities (Billy actually travelling through time and Billy just being insane), he never really picks a definite side.  By not picking a side, Vonnegut leaves it up to us to decide which makes me get more engaged into the novel and enjoy it.

How would the novel be received in different areas of the world? Would the novel have the same impact in another country or culture? (Gynter)

I think this novel is timeless. It was an instant classic at the time it was published, it is a classic now, and will always be a classic years from now when our kids read it in Mr. Lynn’s grade 11 English Class. However, the question begs to be asked if this novel is only a classic in the Western world and whether its message is only effective depending on where it is read?

Slaughterhouse Five’s timeless messages are universal. Whether it is someone in India, Africa, China or Europe, its anti-war message will resonate just as strongly as it does in North America. The author’s message is so effective because of his plot that is inspired by his own wartime experiences.

The first idea that other cultures throughout the world may find so relatable is the notion that war is nothing more than: “Old mean talking and young men dying.” Vonnegut’s poignant discussion with O’Hare’s wife at the beginning of the novel about children fighting and dying in an ugly, atrocious war that is later glorified sends out the powerful messages of the exploitation of youth in war. A person living in Central Africa may very well be able to relate to this, as there are thousands of child soldiers being exploited for the greed of corrupt men. The shedding of a child’s blood is a passionate issue that people worldwide can relate to.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/international/2010/06/14/wv.child.soldiers.bk.a.cnn.html

Secondly, his ability to humanize the enemy is something that audiences worldwide will receive as messages of peace. When the Nazi soldiers capture Billy and Ronald Weary, they are not portrayed as a war machine (like in the American propaganda of the time), but as people who are just as weak and pathetic as Billy. The narrator takes all the romance and glory put of war. He illustrates war as ridiculous, where the German army, consisting of teenagers and old men use worn-out farm-dogs to round up the Americans in the snow. They later stage photos to make themselves look proud and victorious.  It is a message that tells the reader that the enemy standing on the opposite side of the battlefield is also HUMAN.

His portrayal of the atrocities of war is a message that war, regardless of how much it is glorified and what side you are fighting for, is destructive. He does this by showing the reader that the Allies had also committed atrocities, in places such as Dresden, where the book is primarily based on. A person living in Japan may be able to relate. Much like the Nazis, the Japanese committed unfathomable atrocities in World War II, such as the Rape of Nanking. But also, just like the Germans, many innocent Japanese civilians died in the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Other deep philosophical themes that the book insinuates are the idea of Free Will and Fate. Such ideas universal and cross-cultural, and spark the imagination of people world-wide, forcing them to think critically about their mere existence. Only an author as talented and gifted as Vonnegut is able to achieve such a thing.