Epictetus Entry (Sections 16-30)

Through experiences that are usually either positive or negative depending on their direct effect on us, we are always changing. Early on in life we become aware of this assurance and learn to accept it on some levels. But as human nature unsurprisingly is, we are determined to be in full control of our environment and ourselves at all times. To prevent taking this negative and destructive direction, Epictetus thrusts on us a couple or rules we must follow to never be disappointed. Among them we can find to “remember you are an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be…” (pg.16) Meaning you are born into something, whether it’s being a tramp, a heiress, or a private citizen among many categories, but the importance lies on what you make of yourself. There are some of us that are born into greatness, while others have to work excessively to get to it; what’s important is the effort and journey that takes us from what we are born into, to what we become. Resuming, “what is yours is to play the assigned part well. But to choose it belongs to someone else.” (pg. 16)

An additional significant rule is to “…not be weighted down by the consideration, I shall live without any honor, everywhere a nobody! ”(pg.17) Implicating that we are constantly put down by the fact of lacking honors, but what are actually honors? Who has the right to grant them? There is no such thing as a nobody, but someone who chooses to be one. An honor is a superficial statement, like the handbook states “ it is not your task to gain political office or be invited to a banquet…” (pg. 17) The honors that truly matter are the qualities that we posses, those I believe are the honors by which people should be considered a someone, and as Epictetus states,: “…be a somebody only in thing that are up to you…” (pg.17) I interpret this, as stepping up, when necessary, standing out when you can, and being a somebody when it matters and counts.

A different regulation set on the handbook consists in “If these things are good, you should be glad that he has got them. If they are bad, do not be angry that you did not get them. And remember, you cannot demand an equal share if you did not do the same things…” (pg. 18) This entire phrase is teaching a lesson about jealousy and selfishness. We relentlessly feel envy when someone is granted something we desire, but don’t have; we feel greed when we don’t get something and we are egotistic when we feel we deserve something and don’t have it. Therefore we must analyze how self-centered we are being and understand that goods happen to those who work for them and that well-being comes to those who deserve it. At the end equality reigns, and those who worked for it will get it.

The last parameter that called my attention from this section of the handbook was “For each action, consider what leads up to it and what follows it, and approach it in the light of that.” This expression immediately reminded me of Newton’s law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so as we see, as it happens in science, it does as well in human being proceedings. The phrase is trying to give us a lesson that consists on, before stepping up and doing an action, we must consider the consequences it will bring and by understanding them and accepting them if we still desire to do the certain action, we may so but confronting the cost that may come.

Along this passage there were a couple of statements, which I disagreed on, or maybe a quite didn’t understand, among this “remember that what is insulting is not the person who abuses you or hits you, but the judgment about them that they are insulting.” (pg. 16) I consider this to be false, when someone hits you or insults you, it’s not your judgment that they are insulting you, it has nothing to do with judgment.

Epictetus Entry (Sections 1-15)

As I began reading the handbook I noticed it again refers to utopia, this time regarding to how each individual can accomplish his/her personal utopia by following a set of teachings which the Stoic philosophy instructs. In other words it’s a handbook to “dispense practical advice to people on how to live their lives…” (Introduction 1) The teachings state, the best possible condition for a human being is to:

“Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and
your life will go well.” (Introduction 2)

I believe this statement may be to a certain extent right, if you have low expectations or none at all, then nothing will disappoint you. For instance when not expecting an event to be amusing, arriving to it and having a great time you can only be content about how things turned off, and when having a terrible time you will not be disappointed. In order to accomplish this you must take things as they come and not expect them in advance. On the other hand it is practically impossible not to become deluded by an idea. We as human beings have prospects on how things will turn out; if it weren’t to be like that then everything would become monotonous. I believe we must be disappointed at times to also feel satisfied at others. We constantly come across moments in which we await something so anxiously and when we actually live through it, we are frequently disillusioned since it’s not what we imagine it would be, but we have to go through it to undergo the contrast of enjoying something and hating something.

The author also talks about achieving an ideal state by “satisfying all of one’s desires…” but “a human being is by nature unable to do this, both because ones powers are so limited…” (Introduction 2) I completely agree with this statement, an individual will always have goals and try to fulfill them along their life span, when doing so a new goal will come up to mind. Therefore a person is never entirely satisfied and will have continuous desires to carry out.

All of these philosophies seem really simple when just talking about them, but the question lies on how to put oneself into such a state? According to the text we must realize “all events, at least in the external world, are completely determined by prior states of the universe as a whole.” (Introduction 3) Stoics viewed the world as something organized and planned ahead. This made me think about destiny, is our life really based on destiny? Can’t we change what lies ahead of us? Is there really a pattern in nature that defines how our lives will develop?

I then began reading the set of rules imposed by the Stoics, which one must follow to reach a complete lack of dissatisfaction. Among them I agreed with “some things are up to us and some are not up to us.” (pg. 11) I consider there are things under our control that no matter how hard they are to keep managed we are capable of handling them, while there are other things far from our control, that no matter how hard we try to dominate them, we can’t. What is so hard and what challenges most of humanity based on this regiment is accepting the fact we can’t control everything about our surroundings.

Another rule with which I am in complete accordance is, “When you are about to undertake some action, remind yourself what sort of action it is.” (pg. 12) We as humans tend to act impulsively and not think twice about what we are to do, therefore we sometimes end up in troublesome situation in which we didn’t intend to end up and just did so because of being rash. If we do consider our actions before taking them we can save ourselves from a lot of regretful experiences and if doing them, be prepared for whatever they may come with.

Lastly I definitely agree that “What upsets people is not things themselves but their judgments about things.” (pg. 13) For instance death, society has placed a burden in the sense off describing the decease of a person as a terrible event, but actually what do they know about it? Is death really terrible? Will actually never know that until going through it, but in the mean while we can say it’s based on people’s judgment. If they looked at it as a normal, natural and freeing experience, when a person past away they wouldn’t feel the resentment or anger they do. After reading this passage I got really interested in Stoic philosophy and how it analyses life, and is always looking for the ideal condition of a human being.

Reading Blog Entry (Chapters # 9-10)

Slaughterhouse-Five
Kurt Vonnegut
Chapter # 9-10 (pgs. 182-215)

As we get closer to the end of the novel, lots of questions begin to be answered and the details from the beginning of the novel commence to be explained. For instance on chapter nine we are told about Valencia’s death. She was driving towards the hospital agitated after hearing news from the plane crash and concerned that her husband would remain in a vegetable state because of it. She unfortunately passed the turn-off and hit the brakes suddenly causing the Mercedes driving behind her to crash into her car. “Nobody was hurt, thank God, because both drivers were wearing seatbelts. Thank God, thank God.” (pg. 182) Here is a visible example of how Vonnegut mocks Christianity. After hearing his interview we learned that he grew up in an atheist family in which he was raised to believe in no God, but in destiny. When emphasizing on “thank God” we realize he is saying it sarcastically, he doesn’t really think that it is due to God that nobody was hurt, it was because of the fact that they were both wearing seatbelts.

After hitting the Mercedes, Valencia desperately screams out to the other driver what was going on and puts her car on gear then drives off. The accident had caused the Mercedes to lose a headlight only “But the rear end of the Cadillac was a body-and-fender mans wet dream. The trunk and fenders were collapsed. The gaping trunk looked like the mouth of a village idiot who was explaining that he didn’t know anything about anything.” (pg. 182) This description of the accident amazed me, how come he was relating the state of a car after a crash with a man’s wet dream? What do they have in common? Does this have a humorous purpose? When Valencia reaches the hospital her head falls against the steering wheel, and an hour later is declared dead because of carbon dioxide asphyxiation.

Meanwhile “Billy knew nothing about it. He dreamed on, and traveled in time and so forth.” (pg. 183) Next to him was bunking Bertram C. Rumdfoord which had broken his leg while skiing with his wife. He was bored to death about Billy since he said: “All he does in his sleep is quit and surrender and apologize and asked to be left alone. (pg. 184) Throughout this statement a new prediction of Billy’s state came to my mind. I believe Billy had been dreaming everything, since he was surrounded by Rumford which was reading about Dresden, maybe in his subconscious mind he created a world in which he could escape reality and live how he really desired: surrounded only by content moments. He was not actually time traveling to the war, he was just being remembered of it. Later on they mention that, “There was a talk about performing an operation on him later, one which might improve the circulation of the blood in his brain.” (pg. 190) This added up to my theory that it was all in his mind, he had been in a coma and his brain had suffered injuries, besides he lived life unhappily beforehand therefore it was his intuitive that unconsciously led him to create his individualistic utopia in his head. It can be all proven in a statement such as: “Actually Billy’s outward listlessness was a screen. The listlessness concealed a mind which was fizzing and flashing thrillingly. It was preparing letters and lectures about the flying saucers, the negligibility of death, and the true nature of time.” (pg. 190)

Billy then “time traveled” again, this time to two days after Second World War II had ended. He was riding along with five other American prisoners, back to the slaughterhouse to collect souvenirs, in a wagon driven by two horses. “Billy sat in the back of the jiggling coffin. His head was tilted back and his nostrils were flaring. He was happy.” (pg. 194) Was Billy finally happy due to the fact that war had ended? Why would he be happy in a moment after so much destruction had taken place? Did he finally feel worry free, and safe? Was pain and violence finally over? Off course that wasn’t the case, as they continued their ride they had a brief stop in which a German couple noticed that the horses pulling the wagon were full of blisters and had bleeding mouths because of the broken hooves. “When Billy saw the condition of his means of transportation, he burst into tears. He hadn’t cried about anything else in the war.” (pg. 197) Why did Billy burst into tears now? Before hand he had seen people suffering and being tortured, but what did the horses remind him off? Perhaps he realized that writing an anti-war book as the author states is impossible. For instance in this case, the war was over, but suffering still prevailed and misunderstandings and disagreements would lead to more wars. These was later reinforced when Billy returns to New York and all he sees are books about fucking, burglary and murder, news about power, sports and death bookstores in which porn was provided. Finally Billy grabs a book he found from Trout and realizes he had already read it, it was about two people sequestered by aliens and taken to another plant. Another book talked about a time machine and a magazine had the name Montana Wildhack written on it. This just comes to show how crazy Billy was; he had taken aspects from his everyday life and created a new world inside his head that satisfied his desires.

I then read a little biographical piece on Kurt Vonnegut presented by Time in partnership with CNN and I came to understand many aspects of life that Vonnegut related to Billy. Even though in the novel he does not present himself as the main character and tends to appear in random scenes, both Billy and Kurt went through very similar things throughout their lives. Among them I can include enlisting in the army while WWII took place, captured in the Battle of Bulge, being prisoners of war, and that they both survive bombing by hiding in a slaughterhouse among others. One specific trait that stood out was both the character and the author’s lack of interest in life. Vonnegut despises the human race and its vices and indeed tried to commit suicide ounce, Billy as well doesn’t enjoy being alive and takes everything for granted. Finally I could say this article gave me a concrete answer to the “So it goes” that constantly appeared and that I continually questioned. “"So it goes" is a phrase from Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse-Five. It's an expression the Tralfamadorians — a race of four-dimensional aliens — repeat whenever somebody or something dies. It expresses a certain airy resignation about the inevitability of death.”(Lev Grossman)

Reading Blog Entry (Chapter #7-8)

Slaughterhouse-Five
Kurt Vonnegut
Chapters # 7-8 (pgs. 154-181)

When reading this chapter I had the opportunity to answer a lot of the questions I was wondering about and also had the chance to understand and interpret Billy’s time traveling in a way in which it made sense and there was logic behind it. In the beginning of the chapter we are taken 25 years after he visits Dresden, to an instant when he is boarding the plane with his father-in-law and saying goodbye to Valencia. Billy mentions: “He knew it was going to crash, but he didn’t want to make a fool of himself by saying so.” (pg. 154) How could he possibly know the plane was going to crash and do nothing about it? What could he be ashamed off? He could at least have saved a couple of people, including his father-in-law. This made me think that maybe it isn’t the case that Billy can’t change the future; it is that he doesn’t want to change it.

During this passage I also noticed how Lionel Merble is referred to as a machine. “Tralfamadorians, of course, say that every creature and planet in the Universe is a machine. It amuses them that so many Earthlings are offended by the idea of being machines.” (pg. 154) Clearly I’m insulted by the idea of being called a machine due to the fact that I consider machines to be something managed by others, controlled by a superior power and unable to act coherently without orders, in other words they do as their told. We as humans refuse to accept being seen as object and the fact that we can be managed so easily.

Due to Billy’s lack of interest in saving the passengers, they board the plane along with a barbershop quartet that begins to sing Lionel Merbles favorite song after his request. What shocks me is the content of the song:

“In my prison cell I sit,
With my britches full of shit,
And my balls are bouncing gently on the floor.
And I see the bloody snag
When she bit me in the bag,
Oh, I’ll never fuck a Polack anymore.” (pg. 155)

What could the context mean? As we can see it contains revolting words and most importantly a repulsive message with no significant meaning whatsoever. I believe this are the phrases to which the interviewer asks Vonnegut, referring them to be rude and with sexual content. They are meaningless, and could be taken out of the novel without affecting it.

The quartet then sang another melody, and “Billy, knowing the plane was going to crash pretty soon, closed his eyes, and traveled in time back to 1944.” (pg. 156) This phrase made me think about a theory, could it be possible that Billy could choose, when to time travel? How come when he closed his eyes he switched places? This also led me to think that maybe all that Billy was going through was a sum of various dreams, when we come to think about it we can see that there are various times when he time travels that he is in a place where he could probably fall asleep. For instance in previous chapters when being exhausted in a war field, working on a patient in the optometry, or going to the bathroom after making love to his wife on their wedding night among others. Could this theory be just my imagination? Or I’m I actually right? Most times Billy time travels he is in circumstances in which he is tiered, or just sick of being in a specific place.

As I continued reading through chapter eight I came upon a sentence that caught my attention. “He had supposed for years that he had no secretes from himself. Here was a proof that he had a great big secret somewhere inside, and he could not imagine what it was.” (pg. 173) What does this mean? Is it possible to keep a secret from yourself? And if it were what could Billy possibly be keeping from himself? Was he denying an inedible truth? This came to make me think about Kilgore Trout and Eliot Rosewater. Eliot was a war veteran that lay next to Billy in the hospital and sort of introduced him to science fiction novels, especially to those of Kilgore Trout which Billy meets in this chapter. I’m being able to prove that Billy creates all this time travels and theories such as the Tralfamadores one in which he invents this utopia in which he can always be in the places he wants to, those which make him feel satisfyingly. In other words, Billy is trying to imitate a utopia in which he feels comfortable and enjoys every moment he finds himself, and when encountering those he dislike, he can switch places and move ounce again to those which made him feel comfortable.

Referring to Gulliver’s Travels we can say that even do this two novels were written in different times, with different settings and characters they were both trying to point out the same thing: humanity attempts at forming a utopia. As we can see they are both setting their stories with hypothetical characters and settings to mock humans. For instance on Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut creates Billy, as a character struggling to find what’s real and what’s not, and his effort to create time-traveling and the Trafamaldores theory as an excuse to live in the moments he desires to live. On the other hand On Gulliver’s Travels, Swift creates two societies, placing the yahoos (humans) as these filthy creatures that stink and are full of vices and Houyhnhnms (horses) as the perfect society. In reality we can consider the complete opposite, thus horses are the ones who stink and serve while we humans, control them and are much more civilized. But Gulliver being a yahoo is against his own race; he is disgusted by them and tries to find a home among the Houyhnhnms.

We can also compare Gulliver’s character with Howard W. Campbell Jr. due to the fact that they were both against their own race. Gulliver considered the Yahoos to be “…the most filthy, noisome, and deformed Animal which Nature ever produced, so they were the most restive and indocile, mischievous, and malicious.” (Swift, pg. 1) He despised them and didn’t want neither to live with them, nor be part of their society as well as Campbell which also backstabbed his own race. He was an American who turned into a Nazi, which tries to recruit prisoners from the slaughterhouse to fight against the Russian, American allies.

In conclusion both of these stories try to focus on the idea of idealistic utopias, as they are impossible to form. It is unattainable to create a society which everyone considers to be perfect due to the fact that we all depict perfection differently.

Reading Blog Entry (Chapter #6)

Slaughterhouse-Five
Kurt Vonnegut
Chapter #6 (pg. 135-153

As I began reading this chapter it took no time before I came up with something that stood out from the novel. It was just the first word which came to my attention. “Listen: Billy Pilgrim says he went to Dresden, Germany on the day after his morphine night…” (pg. 136) When reading this simple sentence I noticed it started like no other, what was the narrator trying to do? Did he mean listen, as in pay attention? Could that phrase have an extremely important meaning? Otherwise, why would he emphasize on it?

Immediately we are introduced to the hospital for prisoners of war, were Billy lies next to Paul Lazzaro and Edgar Derby. Billy suddenly wakes up “But it wasn’t the cold that had awakened Billy. It was animal magnetism which was making him shiver and itch.” (pg. 136) What could this magnetism be about? Could it just be an illusion? If it were really a feeling what could it mean and were did it come from? Billy continues sensing this force until he reaches into his coat and feels two lumps on it; moreover he doesn’t reach to see what they are sensing that they could do miracles for him if he could hold his curiosity.

Moments later the man who injured Lazzaro (The Blue Fairy Godmother) entered the room, and after a few minutes of being there a discussion breaks between Paul and him. “You made a big mistake, said Lazzaro. Anybody touches me, he better kill me, or I’m gonna have him killed.” (pg. 138) The Blue Fairy Godmother answers, “There is still time for me to kill you.” (pg. 138) and leaves the room. Straight away Lazzaro goes nuts, and begins cursing. He even talks about a time in which he tortures a dog, just because it tried to bit him. He says, “It’s the sweetest thing (revenge) there is, said Lazzaro. People fuck with me, he said, and Jesus Christ are they ever fucking sorry. I laughed like hell. I don’t care if it’s a guy or a dame. If the President of the United States fucked around with me, id fix him good.” (pg. 138-139) This just comes to show the negative effects of war on people and how they grow with anger and resentment inside of them, converting them into violent people, such as with Paul.

As I continued reading I came up with something Pilgrim said which completely stunned me. He said that many years ago, “A certain man promised to have me killed. He is an old man now, living not far from here. He has read all the publicity associated with my appearance in your fair city. He is insane. Tonight he will keep his promise.” (pg. 142) I couldn’t believe that Billy knew how and when he was going to die and talked so calmly about it, he didn’t do anything regarding it. Could it be that he has began to believe in Trafalmadore theory’s and thinks death is just a moment? Or since he is so unenthusiastic about life, he could also act this way because he doesn’t care. I believe it’s my first prediction since he later states: “… and it is time for me to be dead for a little while – and then live again.” (pg. 143)

Something that also called my attention was how an Englishmen “was marking the boundary between the American and English sections of the compound. Billy and Lazzaro and Derby didn’t have to ask what the line meant. It was a familiar symbol from childhood.” (pg. 144) Why did he mean by this? Was he trying to say that racial/national differences were noticeable since they were young? Were restrictions placed on them since kids?

As well as answering several questions and being the inspiration of many more, what I consider to be very important, was that I finally understood why the book was titled the way it is. At the end we can see how they arrive to Dresden and as they are told to memorize their address in case they got lost, we can see “The address was this: Schlachthoffunf. Schlachthof meant slaughterhouse. Funf was good old five.” (pg. 153)

Reading Blog Entry (Chapter #5) Third Part

Slaughterhouse-Five
Kurt Vonnegut
Chapter #5 (pg. 119-136)

This section of the fifth chapter initiates describing Billy and Valencia’s honeymoon in New England and how they were spending a very romantic evening together. Suddenly while in their balcony, Valencia bursts into tears and when asked why, responds by saying she was happy, especially because she thought she would never get married, and that since she did, she would make an effort to lose weight in order to look beautiful for her husband. Instantly Billy replies “I like you just the way you are.” (pg. 120) I believe this remark was so romantic and would ordinarily come from a person who was utterly in love, but when I continued to read I came against, “He had already seen a lot of their marriage, thanks to time-travel, knew that it was going to be at least bearable all the way.” (pg. 120) At once I was astounded at how somebody could marry another person and be willing to spend the rest of his life with him/her even though he wasn’t in love, he would just do it because the marriage would be bearable. That showed me Billy’s true feelings towards Valencia, and how he was just accommodating to what came easiest, and not having to go through the trouble of searching for his soul mate. I believe it would come to be both unfair to himself and to poor Valencia which believed she had found her life partner.

As Billy and Valencia continued in their honeymoon they saw “A great motor yacht named the Scheherezade now slid past their marriage bed. The song its engines sang was a very low organ note.” (pg. 120) Here we can see ounce again the author’s use of personification by implying the engine sang, we can also see some sort of a metaphor since he compares the engines sound to a low organ note. I consider the author uses these literary devices to give more feeling to the novel, here he gets in touch with our senses. The boat continues passing by and this is when Valencia asks Billy about war. “It was a simple-minded thing for a female Earthling to do, to associate sex and glamor with war.” (pg. 121) When I read this statement I was personally confused, how could they be generalizing that we as women relate sex with war? How are this two subject related in any sense? I find this statement completely absurd, even though there could be some meaning behind it based on the historical period or perhaps in a cultural sense.

Billy constantly time-traveled between different periods, ounce when he was in the prisoners of war camp, he headed to the latrine were lots of American prisoners were excreting the food from the banquet, among these American he found a man which “…wailed that he had excreted everything but his brains. Moments later he said ¨ There they go, there they go.¨ he meant his brains. That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book.” (pg. 125) From this declaration we can tell that the author is introducing himself into part of the novel. Right away I eliminated the idea which consisted that the author was indeed Billy; even though they have similar traits we can see they are not the same person.

Ounce again Billy time travels to an instance, already shown before hand in the novel, in which Barbara, Billy’s daughter, is screaming at him believing he has gone crazy and can no longer live alone. She even replies “If you’re going to act like a child, maybe will just have to treat you like a child." (pg. 131) I can completely relate to this phrase since it is something commonly said to children when they misbehave, but that’s what’s so ironic, in the novel the daughter is saying it to the parent instead of the parent to the daughter. Does repeating this event twice in the novel mean something? When Barbara takes the ¨ mothers role ¨will Billy’s thoughts about the Tramaldorians change?

Billy then gets unstuck ounce again on time and wakes up in the Tralfamadores zoo, in which he is found naked next to Montana Whildhack, a motion picture star, also brought by the Tramaldorians for the purpose of watching this two Earthlings’ mate. “The vast crowd outside was delighted. All attendance records for the zoo were broken. Everybody on the planet wanted to see the Earthlings’ mate.” (pg. 132) Past reading this I felt compassion for Billy and Montana, they were being treated as we treat animals on earth, thrown into a cage, and encouraging mating while hundreds of spectators watched them from outside. Off course that when realizing what was going on Montana entered panic, but after a couple of days she got to know Billy and feel comfortable around him. They soon developed a loving and caring relationship which can be interpreted as true love.

As I came to the end of this chapter a comparison caught my eye, this was between a women’s body and Dresden. “The light from the single source threw the baroque detailing of Montana’s body into sharp relief. Billy was reminded of fantastic architecture in Dresden, before it was bombed. I was curious, how was it possible that a women’s body could remind him of Dresden’s architecture? What did they have in common?

Finally the chapter ended when Billy applies all of the Tramaldorians theories and tries to explain them to a small boy which has lost his father. He has learned about them and is starting to believe in them, that is why he makes them his and talks about them with liberty, “…assured the fatherless boy that his father was very much alive still in moments the boy would see again and again.” (Pg.135) Instantly the boy’s mother called the receptionist and accused Billy of being crazy.

Reading Blog Entry (Chapter #5) Second Part

Slaughterhouse-Five
Kurt Vonnegut
Chapter #5 (pg. 96-119)

As I continued reading chapter five they kept on describing the banquet that was offered to those just rescued by the English, among them Billy Pilgrim. He was searching for a phone to call his mother, and in the means of it his coat caught fire, an Englishmen then aware Billy of what was happening and helped him put it off. Following this the Englishmen began watching Billy and described him as “This isn’t a man. It’s a broken kite.” (pg. 97) therefore we can imagine the atrocious state in which Pilgrim must have been when he was rescued. The Englishmen then began interrogating Billy about his outfit, his boots and finally made a remark about his coat, “Jerry gave it to you?” (pg. 97) Off course that after such a comment, Billy had no idea what they were talking about, it was later which the Englishmen repeated “The Germans gave it to you?” (pg. 98) From this statement we can derive that they called the Germans, Jerry as ridicule and a form to tease them.

The banquet continued and the upcoming event was a play based on Cinderella, the most known story, but it had a twist, “The women in the play were really men, of course.” (pg. 98) After reading this I was a little confused, how could it be so obvious that the women roles would be played by men? Was it something based on the time period in which the story took place? Then I realized this was all occurring in the middle of war, therefore no women were present since they didn’t contribute and fight, therefore I imagine that is the reason why men played the female role. They then described the play, Billy was laughing hysterically, and when the clock stroke midnight Cinderella said: “Goodness me, the clock has struck- Alackday, and fuck my luck.” (pg. 98) I was appalled at how such a lovely and romantic story made for children could be modified into something so obscene and rude. Off course I can understand that it was created to entertain soldiers that enjoyed adult humor instead of a princess fairytale, but it came into shock the way in which they amused themselves.

While the play took place “Billy found the couplet so comical that he not only laughed-he shrieked.” (pg. 98) Consequently he was taken out of the room and moved out into a hospital where he was injected morphine and left to be watched by another person. “This volunteer was Edgar Derby, the high school teacher who would be shot to death in Dresden. So it goes.” (pg. 98-99) When I read this I couldn’t imagine how you could deal with knowing somebody would die, and that you couldn’t do anything about it, just lie useless while he took care of you and embrace it as an event that is destined to be and thus will happen.

Soon the morphine became effective and Billy fell into a deep sleep in which he dreamed about giraffes in a garden. “The giraffes were following gravel paths, were pausing to munch sugar pears from treetops. Billy was a giraffe too. He ate a pear. It was a hard one. It fought back against his grinding teeth. It snapped in juicy protest.” (pg. 99) The dream then continued telling us how the other giraffes embraced him and came up to kiss him, both of them being female giraffes. What can this dream mean? Clearly it shows symbolism, but what’s its point? How does it relate to Billy’s life?

While the dream continued Billy traveled in time to a veteran hospital where he laid, his head covered by a blanket, it was three years after the war. In the hospital they believed he was going crazy, not because of the war but due to the fact that “…his father had thrown him into the deep end of the Y.M.C.A. swimming pool when he was a little boy, and had then taken him to the rim of the Grand Canyon.” (pg. 100) I immediately related this to a theory in which I have always believed in, it consist that every little thing you go through, or event that happens to you somehow will affect your future. For instance, for the fact that my parents divorced when I was young may somehow affect my future relationships.

I later came upon a statement that has been constantly repeated through the novel and that has called my attention, this time it was applied to an inanimate object, contrary to before. As I have mentioned the narrator notes down “So it goes.” Every time he mentions the death of somebody, what is bizarre is that this time he mentions it when something dies: “There was a still life on Billy’s bedside table- two pills, an ashtray with three lipstick stained cigarettes in it, one cigarette still burning, and a glass of water. The water was dead. So it goes.” (pg. 101) I found it weird that he stated his common phrase even when the point that was dying was an inanimate object. I also noticed how the author used personification (giving human characteristics to an inanimate object) both to the water, air and then to the bubbles as he affirms “Air was trying to get out of that dead water. Bubbles were clinging to the walls of the glass, too weak to climb out.” (pg. 101)

Billy then continues traveling in time between the veteran hospital where he lies next to Eliot Rosewater (becomes favorite writer), to the Germany hospital, and to his wife Valencia until he time travels to the Tralfamdores were they discuss war, the universe, different sexes and life in general. The Tralfamdores mention “That’s one thing Earthlings might learn to do, if they tried hard enough: Ignore the awful times, and concentrate on the good ones.” (pg. 117) This statement called my attention because I surely agree with the statement, but as it said its something the human race isn’t capable off. We often think of our mistakes and about the negative aspects of our life and tend to leave forgotten what is really important which are the positive pieces.

After listening to Kurt Vonnegut’s interview I had a completely different perspective to the novel that I had before hand. What I first related was based on religion; Kurt mentions that being atheist had run in his family for generations and that though he respects the bible and considers it literally outstanding he is completely against gods laws. I right away thought about the past chapters in which Adam and Eve were mentioned and how the author constantly mocked Christianity, for instance “…conspired biologically to produce two perfect people named Adam and Eve, he supposes.” (pg. 75)

In the interview he also talked about his books being banned and the sexual content they contained, but as he said “you could learn more about sex talking to a fourteen year old boy about sex for 5 minutes than by reading all my books” (Kurt Vonnegut) I completely agree, even though he talks about sexual positions, extraterrestrial apparitions and war, his books have very mild content. The interview also made me realize that Kurt Vonnegut was a German-American that was a prisoner of war, thus his person relates greatly with the character of Slaughterhouse- Five meaning that everything he writes about related to war was something he really went through.