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.

Scenes that would make a great movie (Anas)

There are many scenes in the novel that would lend themselves well to a movie.

When Billy Pilgram gets assassinated.

This would be perfect for a movie if it was the first scene. It would create alot of suspense for the audience and hook the audience into the move. So it would first show Billy giving his speech and then as he would begin to walk off the stage, it would should the snipers perspective. It would show Billy walking through the scope of a sniper rifle showing that he is about to get sniped. As the bullet is fired the camera angle would change so it would seem as if the camera is attached to the tip of the bullet. So when the bullet is travelling towards Billy, he would be on the screen and seem to be getting bigger and bigger until the bullet hits him. Then there would be a flash signifying that Billy had been shot, and the camera angle would change to a shot where the camera would be above Billy. That would make Billy seem small and insignificant. Then the camera would zoom into his eyes and the story would go back in time to the start of the book. By using the above scene in the movie, it shows one of the main unique things about the book and that is the lack of chronological order. By following what the book does, I think that movie adaptation would be effective.

If you could change something about the novel, what would it be? (Gynter)

Vonnegut’s novel is a classic. Very few people can produce such a powerful novel, with such a unique style of writing and timeless messages. However, If I was to change something about the novel is would be the way Vonnegut deals with the character of Edgar Derby. In the novel, Vonnegut makes a hero out of Derby, a middle aged teacher has pulled strings to be able to fight in the war because he couldn't just let his young students go off to battle without himself also fighting. A man of courage, integrity, and character, he is the only American soldier brave enough to stand up to the traitor and hateful Nazi Howard W. Campbell Jr., and defend American ideals. Nevertheless, every time Vonnegut mentions Edgar Derby, he brings up the fact that he will be shot for the petty theft of some teapots after that bombing of Dresden. By constantly doing this, Vonnegut is exposing the reader to the senseless atrocities committed in wartime, and most importantly, he seems to be building up or preparing the reader for what seems to be the climax of the book (even though we know what will happen). Even though in non-linear novels the reader already knows what will happen as the story progresses, what makes them work is that throughout the book, there is an emotion or theme that becomes realized at the climax. Vonnegut seems to be building the emotion of empathy for the tragic story of Edgar Derby by constantly making mention of his unfortunate death, setting up for what seems to be a very crucial part of the book and an emotional climax. However, after Dresden has been bombed in the plot, and the plot progresses to the point where Derby is to be killed, Vonnegut makes a very brief mention of the event. To me as a reader, this is a huge letdown because I was so emotionally invested in Derby. I was expecting Vonnegut to reveal some new type of information or shocking detail about Derby’s death. I wanted him to go more in depth and reveal new information such as who shot him, where he got shot, what his last dying words were etc... Instead of doing this, he almost completely skips over the event that he got the reader so interested in. If I was Vonnegut and I had a chance to rewrite the book, I would use supreme literary skills to describe the events of Derby’s death in much more detail. I would make it seem so tragic that it would make the reader cry.

If Vonnegut was to find out..... (Anas)

If Vonnegut was to find out about our project he would be very pleased. Slaughterhouse Five was written in a way such that many things in the book are left unexplained. Difference people perceive the novel in different ways. By writing about our perceptions of the book, we are bringing to light the many different theories that surround Vonnegut's book. Vonnegut never fully revealed what his thoughts were when writing the novel. I think that by doing so, he expects readers to "figure out" the novel using their own perceptions. So many areas of the book are left up to the readers to dissect and figure out. By writing about our thoughts on the book (or parts of it), we are providing insights into the book and bringing to light the different thought that Vonnegut could have possibly had when writing. I think that by doing so we are doing exactly what Vonnegut wanted, to perceive the book in our own unique way and that would please Vonnegut if he was to see our project.

Vonnegut's thoughts about our projects (Gynter)

I think any author, dead or presently living, would very happy if his plays were being studied. Likewise, I believe that Vonnegut would also be very happy if his best work, Slaughterhouse Five, on which he so diligently worked on for years, is being read in senior high school classes throughout North America decades after being published. This means that his efforts to spread the message of the dangers and atrocities of war, that he experienced firsthand and tried so hard to portray to the public, did not go in vain. For this reason, I think he would be very happy.

However, I believe that he would be especially proud of our blogging project. The reason for that would that we are using the most modern means of communication to share our own original thoughts and ideas on the novel. Vonnegut was a pragmatist, and this revolutionary way of studying his work would impress him because we are extending our ideas inspired by his classic work beyond the classroom and sharing them with the world.

Another reason Vonnegut would be impressed by this project is that his book is being critiqued by common, everyday students, not elitist New York Times critics. This is because Vonnegut wrote the book for people like us, so we could get a better perception of the world around us and share the new ideas we acquire from the book with people around us.

I also think that Vonnegut would also be very proud of Mr. Lynn for empowering us with the tool of opinion by introducing us to the world of blogging. The idea that ordinary people like us can share our thoughts with thousands of individuals worldwide would be truly remarkable to Vonnegut. Vonnegut would be especially proud of this teaching style because it allows the student to uncover different themes and aspects of the book on his own, giving him the opportunity to synthesize his own ideas and discuss them with his/her peers. By doing this, a student may be able to look at the book from unique perspectives that not even the writer may have realized.

Novel = Play ??? (Anas)

I don't think that this novel could work as a play because of the unique style of writing that is utilised to write the book. Most of the novels that are converted into plays are written by people who are conventional writer. These writers have degrees in writing and use the same skeleton to write their stories as the other authors. But in this case, Slaughterhouse Five was written by someone who didn't have a writing degree. The author was not a writer by occupation and he definitely didn't follow the conventional way of writing. Kurt Vonnegut uses his own style of writing which may seem unique and "different", but is unquestionably effective. If an attempt was to be made to turn this book into a play, it would not be very successful. There are many scenes in the book which just cannot be acted out. The time warps provide a very difficult challenge for the play makers. How are they supposed to create the same effects through acting, which have been created through writing which lets the audience perceive things with their own imagination? By creating a play, the ideas that are not clear will be portrayed in the way that the playmakers perceive them, rather than letting the audience do so which is what Vonnegut wanted. An attempt to make a movie has been made, and that attempt was not very successful and that shows that Slaughterhouse Five can only be as "magical" as it is, in the form of a novel.

The Novel as a play (Gynter)

 I think that a play adaptation of Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five would be a complete farce and a disrespect to his Vonnegut himself. Why you may ask? For the very simple reason that Vonnegut’s novels were not meant to be adapted into plays, films or musicals. They were just means to be read.

Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five would not work as a play is because it contains a non-linear plot. Vonnegut does not follow a traditional beginning, middle, and end in his novel. Billy’s incidents of time-travelling often don't take up more than a page in the novel. One minute Billy is in World War II Germany, the next he is a kid drowning at the bottom of a YMCA pool.  On stage, Vonnegut’s complex plot becomes a series of choppy, confusing remembrances. When I was reading the book, I would often have to re-read whole pages because of the fact that Vonnegut so often switched from one setting to another. It would be even harder for the audience to follow this confusing plot. The plot would also be very difficult to realize, as it would be very hard for stage managers to quickly switch from one setting to the next.

Another reason the novel could not be translated into a play is that the novel’s non-linear plot and constantly-changing setting leaves little or no room for character development. The audience will primarily focused on trying to keep up with the plot, and not be able to focus on the changes that major changes like Billy Pilgrim undergo. For this reason, the audience will not be able to create an emotional attachment to the main character, Billy Pilgrim.  Billy's post-war existence in suburban America is steeped in caricature. When presented on stage, Billy's domestic life, with his simple-minded wife and later his nagging daughter will seem like nothing more than a simple sitcom and audiences will miss the true messages that Vonnegut tried to present, such as the destructiveness of war, or the illusion of fate. This would be a great insult to Vonnegut’s hard work.

Vonnegut's darkly humorous novel is dramatic, but it is not overtly theatrical. This is because when writing his novels, Vonnegut is strongly against the idea of building up suspense for the reader, as stated in one of his rules for writing a short story: “Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To hell with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.” When there is such a large lack of suspense in the novel, it is almost an impossible task to recreate a suspenseful play based on the novel. This lack of suspense will bore the audiences and create a general mood of disinterest in theatre. The play will just seem like a confusing biographic account of a possibly schizophrenic World War II veteran’s life.

This is a review of the Slaughterhouse Five play.

http://www.latheatrereview.com/2010/10/09/kurt-vonnegut%E2%80%99s-slaughterhouse-five-at-studio-stage-theatre/

My Novel (Anas)

If I was to start writing a novel, I would write a first person narrative about situations or choices that I made in my life which I wish I could change. So I would write about situations that I was in except I would change them to make them occur like I wished they had rather than writing about what actually happen. That way I would be writing about experiences that I never had, but by doing so I would kind of feel as if I was having them. So I would be able to experience what I wish had and at the same time, also create an interesting story that readers would enjoy. My reading my story, I would want the reader to feel what I wish I had felt and enjoy what it feels like to have everything go your way. So when writing by story I would pick an event that I regret the most, change things around to how I wished it had occurred, and then write about it in a first person narrative. So the main character would be myself as the narrator and the genre would be a narrative.

If I were to write a novel (Gynter)

It would have a heavy apocalyptic theme. The book would be based on three different settings, all different time periods in human history, each containing a main character to the story. All three stories would be told simultaneously.

The first setting would be located in the Middle Ages, at the time of the Black Death. The main character would be a young farmer who has recently been married and is trying to provide for his family in the face of this devastating pandemic, the likes of which humans have never seen before. The farmer is unaffected by the plague and must decide whether or not to take care of his own mother, who has the disease.  

The second setting would be in Southern Bronx, New York, and the main character would be a young male who has just recently become a father. Struggling to overcome a life of poverty, he must fight to provide for his young son. He is a hard worker, but is faced with a dilemma: whether to go on living in poverty working a low paying job or whether to go the way of dealing drugs in order to become rich quickly.

The third setting is placed in the future, and the time is unknown (likely centuries from the current date). Earth is now just a wasteland, as a result of nuclear warfare between the world’s superpowers. The population of the Earth has been reduced to a few million and radioactivity is abundant, and food is scarce. The main character is a survivor who must now fight to stay alive in this new world. His only hope is to find the Amazon rainforest, a place that was unaffected by the nuclear warfare. Once he finds the Amazon rainforest, he must decide whether or not he will disrupt the lifestyle of the natives who have been living there for centuries.

As the book progresses, all of the characters are juxtaposed with each other as they make their moral decisions. The reoccurring theme in the book is the inherent greed that humans possess. As the book progresses, I describe as best as possible the living conditions of each person, recounting a sort of the common man’s history.

Warped Narrative (Gynter)

Gynter’s heart was beating. The cold air sent chills down his spine. He was scared. “We’ll take good care of you said,” the anaesthesiologist as he placed a breathing mask on his face. Gynter had suffered a gruesome accident that Saturday morning, and now he was in the operating room. He had been running down the stairs to meet his aunt that he hadn’t seen in two years, who had just arrived from New York. His mother had just finished mopping, and as he ran, he slipped down the stairs and fell hard at the bottom of the staircase; so hard that he broke his arm. And that’s not the worst part. When he fell, he tipped over a table that had a fish aquarium on it. The aquarium fell on him and there was broken glass thrust deep in his face. He didn’t feel his arm and his face burnt like hell to the point where it became numb. So it goes. As the anaesthetic took effect, Gynter travelled in time for the first time.

It was September 2004. Gynter had just arrived in Toronto Pearson International Airport.  His family had decided to immigrate to Canada in search of a new and better life, but he missed his home country already. As his parents talked to the customs officials and his sister played with her doll, he thought back to what his friends back in Albania were doing. It was the first day of school for them. He remembered how excited he always was for the first day of school. He thought about his grandparents. They had been strong and hadn’t cried when they had greeted him and his family good bye. Gynter’s mother said they probably cried afterwards, and with good reason. It was hard saying goodbye as your child left for a country halfway across the world. It was pouring rain outside the airport. This first thing as Gynter had noticed as he stepped out of the airport is that the air had a different smell. This country a different look too, and a different feel... He felt hope and envisioned opportunity in this nation. He fell asleep as he was riding on the Greyhound bus to Windsor, the city that would become his new home. As he closed his eyes, he travelled in time again; on this occasion he would travel to the future.

It was grade six. He had learned how to speak English by now and was accustomed to his new home. In more ways than one, Canada seemed like the perfect country. He was enjoying his new life, but it was not perfect. There was a particular student at school, by the name of Jon, that loathed Gynter. Gynter did not know why. Perhaps it was because he was the new kid in school, but nonetheless, he was constantly teasing and bullying him. Being a person of calm character, Gynter was not easily provoked. He managed to ignore him for several weeks, taking his insults and teasing. During this time, Gynter’s parents had purchased me a new bicycle. He loved that bike; God knows he loved that bike. He was always taking good care of it and seen riding it to school every day. Taking notice of his attachment to the bike, Jon decided to use it as a tool to harass him. Up to this time Gynter had taken his insults, name-calling and verbal abuse, until one day when Jon went too far. Gynter was riding his bike home when Jon and his friends ambushed him. They stopped him and started kicking his bike. At that moment, blood rushed to Gynter’s head and he snapped. His emotions got a hold of him and he resorted to violence. He punched the bully in the stomach. He punched him so hard that he threw up. So it goes. Jon’s friends jumped at him and Gynter went home with a bloody nose that day. Gynter wasn’t proud of what he did. He had never fought before. But that didn’t matter because the next day at school, he was suspended for a week, while Jon and his friends received no punishment whatsoever. So it goes To this day, Gynter still believe this was one of the greatest injustices ever done to him. Even before hearing his side of the story, the principal had already come to a decision. You see, the bully’s mother was head of the school council. She made sure to get retribution for her son. But that’s life. You go on living.

Warped Narrative (Anas)

It was a big day. Today, Anas was receiving his report card. At the end of the first period, the reports were handed out and Anas' classmates tore the envelope and ripped them out in eagerness. Since he knew that he had done well, he didn't open his report card. Rather, he decided to do so in the company of his family when he got home after school. After the bell rang, signalling the end of school, Anas tore out of class and started on his way home. After a couple minutes of walking, he decided that the anticipation was too much for him. He pulled his report card out of his bag, and opened it. What lay before him was a report card of his dreams. He had exceeded his expectations for every class. Overcome with joy, he started sprinting. He ran like he had never before, wanting to get home as soon as possible and show his parents.

He looked up and he was still running. The end zone was just ahead of him, but the defenders were still in the chase and closing in on him. The clock was ticking. He drew energy from every fibre of his body and accelerated. He was only twenty yards away from his goal. His goal of scoring the game winning touchdown in the finals. The distance to his destination had now been cut down to only ten yards, and BOOM he was there. He had scored with 3 seconds left on the clock. The crowd went wild and he celebrated with a front-flip. He turned around and SMASH. The defenders had speared him painfully in the gut. After seeing him score, the defenders decided to get even by tackling him into the ground. Black spots appeared in front of his eyes. The noise coming into his ears tuned out and he had a tormenting pain in his abdomen. Finally, he blacked out.

He regained consciousness. Everything was black, but when he opened his eyes his vision slowly returned. After a few moments he realised that he was in a hospital bed and that he had a throbbing headache. He looked around him, and there was his family around the bed anxiously peering at him. After the doctors announced that he was in good condition, he remembered what had made him end up in the hospital. He had slipped and fallen on a marble floor, causing a gash on his forehead. But after some time in the hospital, he was all stitched up and back in perfect condition.

Book Banning (Anas)

I think that literature that could provoke strong reactions should definitely not be withheld or censored. The main issue with banning books is the debate of who gets to decide which books get banned or not. Some books may be offensive to some people whereas on the other hand, the rest of the people might not find the book offensive at all. Since each person is unique, different people have different meanings of what is offensive and what is not. By banning a book, the decision to decide what is right or wrong for us is being put into the hands of one person (or a few people).  If a piece of literature is read by someone, it should be up to them to decide whether they find that offensive or not. If they do so, then that has a positive side to it. By finding something offensive, a reader realises that not everything is perfect. There are things in the world that you may not like, but you have to tolerate them and accept them because that is a part of life. By banning a book, people are unable to realise that not everything can be the perfect and there things that they will not like in life. Even though I think that books like Slaughterhouse Five and Brave New World should not be banned, there are some books that I believe cross the line. An example is Hitler's book Mein Kamf. By demeaning others due to their religious beliefs, I think that Hitler crossed that line and went to the side that requires his book to be banned. His book completely opposes the standards of humanity and therefore it is an example of a book that should definitely be banned.

Censorship in Literature (Gynter)

When discussing the censorship of slaughterhouse five, one must understand the socio-political circumstances that surrounded the United States at the time. It was the 1960’s, a time of social change filled with political controversies, such as the Vietnam War, an on-going conflict where thousands of Americans would shed their blood. The American society was a much more socially conservative society when Slaughterhouse Five was published, with topics such as homosexuality, bestiality, criticism of religion, and the vilifying of the American government and military being considered socially taboo. For these reasons, it is very logical why the American people would have objections to the book, and it is understandable why they would want to ban the book.

However, I strongly disagree. I believe that no literature, no matter how controversial, should be censored. Without this basic notion of freedom, our modern civilization, as we know it, would not exist. If great minds like Galileo, who presented the basic idea that the Earth revolves around the sun, or Mohandas Ghandi, who pioneered resistance to tyranny through peaceful means, had not questioned the social order of the time, we would not cherish today’s freedoms. The written word is where all revolutions start. If government gained the power to regulate literature, our society would revert back to the middle ages.

Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five brought to light many moral issues that the American public had overlooked over the 20^th century. One of them was the atrocity that was the bombing of Dresden. Vonnegut, having had a firsthand experience of the Dresden bombings, presents the viewer the true destructive nature of war. Vonnegut presents the American the reader to the ugly nature of war, and how it degenerates the morale of a human being, by portraying the ill-nature and profanity of the American soldiers.  The reason that it provokes strong reactions is because Vonnegut is telling the cold hard truth, and truth hurts sometimes. Vonnegut was also one of the first to give literary acknowledgments that homosexual men, referred to in the novel as "fairies," were among the victims of the Nazi Holocaust.
Although many people may try to label Vonnegut as Anti-American, I sincerely believe that he was a true patriot. He was a war veteran who loved his country. He did not strongly criticize because he had feelings of hatred towards the United States, but because he wanted the best for Americans. In many ways, his book was a reflection of the culture of the United States. He forced the American people to take a close look at themselves and make them want to change what was wrong in their society. The passages in the book where he criticizes the poverty epidemic are intended to expose the American public (especially the middle class) to the fact that their society is far from being perfect and that problems like poverty should not be ignored. Controversial as it may be, a person who truly loves his country should be able to criticize it.
Literature should be the last thing that governments should focus on censoring. I think there is more harmful material, such as pornography, or the encouragement of recreational drug use through television that governments should prevent kids from getting exposed to.
It is true that the books that we have read this year like Brave New World, 1984 and Slaughterhouse Five include topics (sex, recreational drug use) that are inappropriate for certain age groups. However they also contain timeless messages such as the danger of totalitarian governments, the destructiveness of war, drug use, genetic engineering etc... This is why school boards should refrain from banning the reading of these books inside classrooms. They should, however, set a minimum age limit as to when the book can be read.
In conclusion, I believe that, in a civilized society, the written word is the strongest weapon a civilian possesses. If that is taken away from a person, we are nothing more than a fascist dictatorship.

Quote Commentary (Anas)

"Here is a lesson is creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."

This quote perfectly shows one of the unique things about Kurt Vonnegut and that is his unconventional way of writing. To most writers, semicolons represent a display of their writing prowess. It shows that the writer is a "high standard" writer who can write literature at high levels. But to Vonnegut, semicolons are useless with no value and a way to show off for the writer. As known, Vonnegut is not a writer by occupation and never got a writing degree. Rather he uses his own style of unconventional, but effective, way of writing to get his thoughts across to the readers. So the quote reveals Vonnegut's uniqueness in writing, and that can also be found in his books. In Slaughterhouse Five he utilises unique techniques to engage his readers and make the story interesting for them. These techniques include disregarding a chronological order and also leaving a lot of the story up to the reader to depict.

Response to Quote (Gynter)

1492. As children we were taught to memorize this year with pride and joy as the year people began living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America. Actually, people had been living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America for hundreds of years before that. 1492 was simply the year sea pirates began to rob, cheat, and kill them.

This quote is a perfect representation of Vonnegut’s character. Vonnegut is man of bravery, courage, and integrity, who will stand up for the rights of unprivileged people in society, even if it means unpopularity and harsh criticism. In this case Vonnegut is defending the rights of Native Americans, who have been oppressed for centuries by the white man, specifically white Americans. The psyche and national mythology of the United States of America is built on the battles American settlers have fought with the natives. However, no American ever bothers to think what became of the natives after these wars. They were killed and forcefully moved from their lands that they inhabited for thousands of years. What Americans did to the natives can be considered almost genocidal.   Vonnegut has seen firsthand accounts of civilians being slaughtered by the American government in the name of national ideals, so he can vividly imagine what the poor Natives had to suffer through. World War II, just like the slaughtering of Native Americans, has also become a source of extreme national pride for the American people. Vonnegut criticizes this in his book, claiming that on both sides there were civilians that were dying. Just because an event is propagated so much by the American government, Vonnegut tells people that they do not have to blindly accept it, and should openly criticize it if innocent people were slaughtered.

I also really enjoy the blunt language that Vonnegut uses in this quote, as he calls the early explorers sea pirates that robbed, cheated, and killed the Natives. Vonnegut is very capable of using intricate language, but simpler vocabulary in order to make his message more effective. This writing style is also seen in the novel Slaughterhouse Five, as he frequently uses the simple phrase “So it goes” to engage his reader.

Vonnegut is a man of justice, and not justice only when it is convenient for American nationalism. Truth be told, Americans have committed atrocities towards many other unprivileged groups  (Africans, Natives etc…), and only now are they starting to own up to it. Vonnegut is a big reason for this. He urges Americans to critically look at their past, take responsibility for the actions they committed, and turn a blind eye to these atrocities. They should criticize such past history, not glamorize. According to Vonnegut, Americans have to realize that 1492 is a year of morning for Native Americans, as their millennium-old lifestyle was destroyed.

Billy Pilgrim: fact or fiction? (Anas)

I think that Billy Pilgram is not actually traveling through time. Rather, his experiences are a result of what he has been through in his life. I believe this because, all his "strange" activities started after the airplane crash from which he was the only one to survive. As if the crash was not enough to shake him up, his wife died shortly after due to poisoning. Also, during his childhood he experienced many traumatizing situations such as being thrown into a pool by someone he trusted and standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon. He was able to get past these "road blocks" and lead a successful life, until finally the crash uncorked the bottle that that held in the experiences. Before the plane crash he was leading a successful and prosperous life, but as soon as the incident occurred his life turned upside down. He lost interest in his occupation, and started to lead a strange and solitary life. After his recovery from the crash, he decided to tell the world about his "abductions" by the Tralfamadorians. His story was so absurd that even his daughter lost trust in him. This is shown in their conversation: "'What is it about my letter that makes you so mad?' Billy wanted to know. 'It's all just crazy. None of it's true!' 'It's all true.'"(29). Billy’s actions made his family feel embarrassed and that he was a lunatic. In the book, Vonnegut says that, "Barbara was only twenty-one years old. But she thought her father was senile, even though he was only forty-six- senile because of damage to his brain in the airplane crash." (28). This supports my belief that Billy had been severely affected by the plane crash. So due to the fact that Billy never mentioned the Tralfamadorians before his plane crash, I think that him “travelling through time” is just a result of his traumatic life experiences.

The Notion of Fate vs Free Will in Slaughterhouse 5 (Gynter)

First a few quotes regarding the subject from the book:
'Welcome aboard, Mr. Pilgrim,' said the loudspeaker. 'Any questions?'

Billy licked his lips, thought a while, inquired at last: 'Why me?'

'That is a very Earthling question to ask, Mr. Pilgrim. Why you? Why us for that matter? Why anything? Because this moment simply is. Have you ever seen bugs trapped in amber?'

Yes.' Billy, in fact, had a paperweight in his office which was a blob of polished amber with three lady-bugs embedded in it.

'Well, here we are, Mr. Pilgrim, trapped in the amber of this moment. There is no why.'" (Slaughterhouse-Five, p.76-77). This encounter demonstrates the Tralfamadorian concept of time and free will. Time is an illusion, and free will doesn't exist. In other point in the story, the Tralfamadorians address the concept of free will directly.

"If I hadn't spent so much time studying Earthlings," said the Tralfamadorian, "I wouldn't have any idea what was meant by 'free will.' I've visited thirty-one inhabited planets in the universe, and I have studied reports on one hundred more. Only on Earth is there any talk of free will."(Slaughterhouse-Five, p. 86)
What drives humanity? What is the basis for the existence of society? The answer is free will, the very thing that gets you out of bed in the morning. The very idea that you have the freedom to start fresh everyday is what makes a person strive to be their best. In the novel Slaughterhouse 5, Kurt Vonnegut  takes a much different outlook on the issue. He believes that free will does not exist and each individual has a predestined future that they can do nothing to change: "Among the things that Billy could not change were the past, the present and the future." To suggest that free will does not exist is simply preposterous in my opinion. Through this idea, the author is not only taking a very pessimistic outlook on life, but also suggesting the fact that war is inevitable, that atrocities such as the holocaust and the Armenian genocide are expected to happen as a natural cycle of human history. This disgusts me. Where would we be if the greatest people in our society did not believe in determining their own fate? Where would we be of Rosa Parks has not refused to sit at the back of the bus? Where would be if Martin Luther King had not fought slavery and simply accepted the social order of the time? Without free will, as Kurt Vonnegut suggests, there would be no point in struggle for human rights and social change, which constitute the very foundation of western, democratic societies that we live in. To all these great people who fight for freedom, or simply to a person who may working as hard as he can to uplift himself from poverty, Mr. Vonnegut would say that these people are wasting their lives, because they put so much energy into fighting the predestined, and thus preventing happiness.

Gynter K.

TO BE CONTINUED...

WELCOME TO OUR BLOG

In the next few weeks we will be taking you through a journey, as we share with you our thoughts on Kurt Vonnegut's classic Slaughterhouse Five. Please enjoy our blog and always feel free to leave comments and feedback.
Gynter and Anas