Memento, possibly one of the greatest movies made to date. It retells the story of Leonard, a man who's lost the ability to hold onto any short term memory, only being able to recall distant memories of a better time, when his wife was still alive. Leonard struggles everyday with his memory problems and he can only move forward, not knowing what's happened in his recent past. While Billy has the ability to know everything about every point in time in his own life, Leonard is able to revisit distant memories in his past and since he's only remembering them and not actually reliving them, they are not always true. Leonard can only move forward, and he barely has any knowledge of the past, while Billy can move to any time he wants. There are also a lot more than just their relation to time.
Memento also has a very non-linear story, but as opposed to Slaughterhouse, the most climactic scene remains at the end of the story. It gives away very little of the story and you must follow it through to understand exactly what happens. Although it does start with the ending, the whole process leading up to it isn't revealed so there is still a sense of mystery. The ending of Memento made the whole experience feel satisfying and fulfilling to watch to the end, while Slaughterhouse only trails off on what is to be an endless story. There's just a better feeling from an ending that feels like it's concluding a story and making the entire film worth watching rather than one that's been spoiled and predictable. It's as if someone tells you the ending of a really good movie that you haven't seen. Every part that's suppose to be suspenseful or climactic wouldn't matter anymore because you already know how things will turn out. The novel might also lose the attention of the reader if it isn't interesting which doesn't help in the slightest of getting the author's messages across.
There's also the difference in their characters. Billy is a static character that has no goal in the novel other than to basically narrate what goes on around him. He doesn't take chances and only follows the path that's been set for him. Leonard is not like Billy. Leonard is a dynamic character that changes as the story progresses and is crucial for the story to move forward. To me, Billy justs seems to take away from the all the ideas that Vonnegut tries to give and sometimes i read without actually paying attention since the story doesn't seem interesting enough. Leonard, on the other hand, is so adventurous and his story is interesting that i am captivated by it and i want to continue to watch it.
Anyways, everything stated here is just my opinion, you're welcome to disagree.
Monday 28 March 2011
Sunday 27 March 2011
Beginning, Middle, and End - Milan, WA4
People say that life is a series of events that follow a certain sequence of events: with a beginning, a middle, and an end. Perhaps it is, but it's almost certainly more likely that it isn't. Just as morals were created by humans, it is not unlikely that humans also created the concept of time. Not only is it an easier way of understanding it, but it is also a useful way of structuring our lives to meet some unknown (and perhaps predetermined) goal.
If it, on the offchance that our beliefs are in fact not far from the truth, is true the life can be looked at as a simple timeline of events, then here is a plausible perspective from which one can observe this often-overlooked phenomenon. . .
As the ground began to blur outside, the group of people sat still in their seats. Occasionally, someone would open their mouths in an effort to rid themselves of the growing pressure in their heads. Slowly, the distance between the ground and the people grew, until at some point everyone was angled to the ground and heading towards some distant point in the heavens. The plane straightened itself out as it set a new course towards a predetermined destination off in the far distance. Unfortunately, the jubilance of the situation was lost on a man who had recently lost his mother to what was supposedly natural causes. So it goes. He had, in his grief, neglected to equalize the pressure in his head and soon fell into a state of emptiness.
The man remembered a time where he was on an amusing contraption popularized in the 20th century. The chain hoisted him, along with a group of other people, on an incline towards a steep fall. For others, this steep fall would cause a loss of control. However, the entire path was already set and the way through it could not be changed. As the man neared the top of the incline, his nerves began to build until finally he could no longer wait. At that moment, he fell over and his body felt as if it was floating in thin air. Fortunately, he was held by a harness to prevent this feeling of weightlessness from resulting in death. As the path then once again turned into an incline, the man felt as if he was being pushed through the floor of his seat by an invisible force. A turn, a corkscrew, another turn, a loop, and the man found himself not in pain from the numerous jolts and bumps along the way, but in complete excitement and awe from his experience. The path, however, was being covered in slower and slower paces. The man could see darkness ahead, yet he was not entering with anxiety or fear or regret in his mind. He allowed the shadows to envelop his body and the very corners of his mind.
The ground was visible through a misty and translucent layer of clouds. Time seemed to take an eternity as, gradually, it was so close that one could almost jump out and land without being hurt. Once again, that familiar pressure was encroaching on the man's mind, but he pushed it away for just a few moments. He called his wife to tell her that everything is fine. As the plane came to a stop and the staircase was lowered, the man took his hand-luggage with the memorabilia he'd gathered from his trip and walked to the front of the airplane. Just before he stepped out in the light outside, he smiled. So it goes.
If it, on the offchance that our beliefs are in fact not far from the truth, is true the life can be looked at as a simple timeline of events, then here is a plausible perspective from which one can observe this often-overlooked phenomenon. . .
As the ground began to blur outside, the group of people sat still in their seats. Occasionally, someone would open their mouths in an effort to rid themselves of the growing pressure in their heads. Slowly, the distance between the ground and the people grew, until at some point everyone was angled to the ground and heading towards some distant point in the heavens. The plane straightened itself out as it set a new course towards a predetermined destination off in the far distance. Unfortunately, the jubilance of the situation was lost on a man who had recently lost his mother to what was supposedly natural causes. So it goes. He had, in his grief, neglected to equalize the pressure in his head and soon fell into a state of emptiness.
The man remembered a time where he was on an amusing contraption popularized in the 20th century. The chain hoisted him, along with a group of other people, on an incline towards a steep fall. For others, this steep fall would cause a loss of control. However, the entire path was already set and the way through it could not be changed. As the man neared the top of the incline, his nerves began to build until finally he could no longer wait. At that moment, he fell over and his body felt as if it was floating in thin air. Fortunately, he was held by a harness to prevent this feeling of weightlessness from resulting in death. As the path then once again turned into an incline, the man felt as if he was being pushed through the floor of his seat by an invisible force. A turn, a corkscrew, another turn, a loop, and the man found himself not in pain from the numerous jolts and bumps along the way, but in complete excitement and awe from his experience. The path, however, was being covered in slower and slower paces. The man could see darkness ahead, yet he was not entering with anxiety or fear or regret in his mind. He allowed the shadows to envelop his body and the very corners of his mind.
The ground was visible through a misty and translucent layer of clouds. Time seemed to take an eternity as, gradually, it was so close that one could almost jump out and land without being hurt. Once again, that familiar pressure was encroaching on the man's mind, but he pushed it away for just a few moments. He called his wife to tell her that everything is fine. As the plane came to a stop and the staircase was lowered, the man took his hand-luggage with the memorabilia he'd gathered from his trip and walked to the front of the airplane. Just before he stepped out in the light outside, he smiled. So it goes.
Friday 25 March 2011
Slipping through time - John
It's 5 p.m. and i'm rushing to finish all of the chores that weren't supposed to be started for another few hours. Why, you may ask? The hell-spawn day known as report card day had arrived; the day that had been solely created to shatter all the youthful dreams of the young and aspiring doctors, astronauts, engineers. It was on this very day that reality had taken me by the head and shaken me awake. It said to me: "John, you're a grown up now. You can now be held accountable for all of your actions." Reality wasn't kind. My first step into high school had been leading me downwards and as time progressed, the lower i had sunk. Lessons started out monotonous and boring but as months passed, the equations and explanations written on the board turned into hieroglyphs. Then came the fateful day, as report cards were distributed out i saw simple numbers recognizable by anyone. 45, it said, was your mark in math. Despair, fear, anxiety, any bad emotion you can think of, all flooded into my body. The wait had been unbearable, the span of time between my arrival at the house and the arrival of my parents seemed like a decade. I racked my mind for solutions to this problem, an escape route, a method of softening the blow, anything to save my life. My brain responded by telling me the same thing that reality was saying: "You are responsible for this. Deal with it."
And then it happened, all the anxiety, fear, doubt dissolved as one emotion stayed behind. Adrenaline. it was adrenaline that told me it was a good idea to follow my friends on a bus to nowhere in the middle of the night when i should have been at home. Adrenaline blocked out reason and pushed me forward. The night was young, and my friends and I were going on an adventure. The bus eventually came to a stop at Hooters, a restaurant that would be closed down years later due to their unsavory back room deals. For the time being thought, we were happy. My adrenaline started to lose its grasp of my mind as it spoke the first logical sentence of the entire night: "what now? you're awfully far from home. How will you explain this to mom and dad?" Once we left the restaurant at roughly 10:30, the rigorous journey had begun. A walk to the closest of our houses would take more than an hour, and no one had the energy to make it. We pushed through the doors of the restaurant and embraced the cool evening breeze. Have you ever had that feeling where you just wanted to get up and move? It's as if you've been stationary for far too long and you had to check if your legs could even take you to where you need to go. I felt like it. So my friends and i just started running, not knowing the exact location of where we were heading but we knew if we headed in a straight line, we'd reach a destination. Adrenaline rushed through my system again, surging through every part of my body as if it were blood. And then everything fades back to black.
I stretch my arms and prepare to resume writing my English project. I can't even remember how many times I've opened this very same document, only to turn away from lack of motivation. The short burst of energy that had onced possesed me dissipated once i saw the screen. Words hadn't appeared, couldn't appear, won't appear. My mind was drawing a blank. It's as if the Neuralyzer from Men in Black was embedded into this page and a simple glance at the screen wipes the mind of and budding ideas. There wasn't much that came to me as i though of more to write about so i returned to surfing the inernet once again. The clock read 6:27, meaning that more than 2 hours had passed without a fraction of a word appearing on the page. Frustration, anger, desperation, my mind furious at the though of having to continue with the endless stream of assessments. The emotions finally become too much to handle and i force any and all thoughs onto the page. Finally, it's come to and end. The torturous task of writing any more ends with the last of this sentence.
And then it happened, all the anxiety, fear, doubt dissolved as one emotion stayed behind. Adrenaline. it was adrenaline that told me it was a good idea to follow my friends on a bus to nowhere in the middle of the night when i should have been at home. Adrenaline blocked out reason and pushed me forward. The night was young, and my friends and I were going on an adventure. The bus eventually came to a stop at Hooters, a restaurant that would be closed down years later due to their unsavory back room deals. For the time being thought, we were happy. My adrenaline started to lose its grasp of my mind as it spoke the first logical sentence of the entire night: "what now? you're awfully far from home. How will you explain this to mom and dad?" Once we left the restaurant at roughly 10:30, the rigorous journey had begun. A walk to the closest of our houses would take more than an hour, and no one had the energy to make it. We pushed through the doors of the restaurant and embraced the cool evening breeze. Have you ever had that feeling where you just wanted to get up and move? It's as if you've been stationary for far too long and you had to check if your legs could even take you to where you need to go. I felt like it. So my friends and i just started running, not knowing the exact location of where we were heading but we knew if we headed in a straight line, we'd reach a destination. Adrenaline rushed through my system again, surging through every part of my body as if it were blood. And then everything fades back to black.
I stretch my arms and prepare to resume writing my English project. I can't even remember how many times I've opened this very same document, only to turn away from lack of motivation. The short burst of energy that had onced possesed me dissipated once i saw the screen. Words hadn't appeared, couldn't appear, won't appear. My mind was drawing a blank. It's as if the Neuralyzer from Men in Black was embedded into this page and a simple glance at the screen wipes the mind of and budding ideas. There wasn't much that came to me as i though of more to write about so i returned to surfing the inernet once again. The clock read 6:27, meaning that more than 2 hours had passed without a fraction of a word appearing on the page. Frustration, anger, desperation, my mind furious at the though of having to continue with the endless stream of assessments. The emotions finally become too much to handle and i force any and all thoughs onto the page. Finally, it's come to and end. The torturous task of writing any more ends with the last of this sentence.
Saturday 19 March 2011
Re: Billy Pilgrim, as boring as they come. - Milan, OWA1
Just acting as the 'devil's advocate', the novel isn't necessarily about Billy Pilgrim: it's about life around him. Billy Pilgrim is merely used as a point of view from which one can view society. As such, the novel becomes a story of the people and experiences that Billy sees, not about the character of Billy Pilgrim. It could indeed be said that everything around Billy becomes the characters in the novel; human society and its various facets become characters, while the Tralfamadorians are another character that they represent collectively.
It's impossible to sympathize with Billy (at least in the way that he's presented), because what he thinks and feels are not similar to most of people's personalities. Unlike, say, Napoleon or Snowball from Animal Farm he does not possess any qualities that draw others to him. Quite the contrary, he attempts to distance himself from others whenever he is given the best of chances.
I believe, as I said earlier, that Billy Pilgrim is used as a channel through which readers can observe human society in comparison with the Tralfamadorians (who represent an alternative to our 'popular' way of thinking). Therefore, Billy is in no place to attempt to try to change either society but merely to present us, the readers, with a viable alternative. As this is the ultimate goal of the novel, there can be no more important aspect of the story than Billy for without his unique way of looking in from the outside, it would be much more difficult to escape the pressures of society and thus be able to compare what we have and don't have.
However, there is one aspect in which Billy is used as an example for a reader: his opinion of fate and how he deals with it. Billy knows exactly what's going to happen to him in the future, but he doesn't have the mindset of making it as enjoyable as possible. Humans are the only species on Earth that can foresee possible events far in the future yet also do nothing about it (or be slow to react to it). We are, most commonly, content with what we have and not under pressure to change unless we find it immediately necessary. I believe that the message that is being attempted to be relayed by Vonnegut in his writing of Billy is not to casually accept events as he does, but rather to cherish our time alive and make the most of it. This ties directly into the Tralfamadorian beliefs of focusing on the good in lieu of the bad in life. Billy fails to do so even when he has the opportunity to do so, and we should all take care not to follow in his footsteps, however different they may be from our current way of thinking.
It's impossible to sympathize with Billy (at least in the way that he's presented), because what he thinks and feels are not similar to most of people's personalities. Unlike, say, Napoleon or Snowball from Animal Farm he does not possess any qualities that draw others to him. Quite the contrary, he attempts to distance himself from others whenever he is given the best of chances.
I believe, as I said earlier, that Billy Pilgrim is used as a channel through which readers can observe human society in comparison with the Tralfamadorians (who represent an alternative to our 'popular' way of thinking). Therefore, Billy is in no place to attempt to try to change either society but merely to present us, the readers, with a viable alternative. As this is the ultimate goal of the novel, there can be no more important aspect of the story than Billy for without his unique way of looking in from the outside, it would be much more difficult to escape the pressures of society and thus be able to compare what we have and don't have.
However, there is one aspect in which Billy is used as an example for a reader: his opinion of fate and how he deals with it. Billy knows exactly what's going to happen to him in the future, but he doesn't have the mindset of making it as enjoyable as possible. Humans are the only species on Earth that can foresee possible events far in the future yet also do nothing about it (or be slow to react to it). We are, most commonly, content with what we have and not under pressure to change unless we find it immediately necessary. I believe that the message that is being attempted to be relayed by Vonnegut in his writing of Billy is not to casually accept events as he does, but rather to cherish our time alive and make the most of it. This ties directly into the Tralfamadorian beliefs of focusing on the good in lieu of the bad in life. Billy fails to do so even when he has the opportunity to do so, and we should all take care not to follow in his footsteps, however different they may be from our current way of thinking.
Thursday 17 March 2011
Billy Pilgrim, as boring as they come. - John
I absolutely detest Billy Pilgrim. Every novel to this point has been enjoyable and even exciting, until we've have to read about the melancholy of Pilgrim. I truly believe that you cannot have a great story if there is an absence of a great character to propel it forward. Great characters grow, learn, and most importantly, we can relate and sympathize with these characters, but Billy is only palatable at best. From the rule-bound 1984 to the drug-driven Brave New World, we are offered great characters that are smart, strong and dedicated to their cause. There is a great difference between characters like Bernard and Winston and characters like Billy. You see, Bernard and Winston are event-making while Billy is only eventful. What this means is that Bernard and Winston both set out with a goal in mind as they both try to improve their world. We, as humans, find this noble and is why we appreciate characters as such. Billy, on the other hand is as boring as they come, emotionless and dead inside, and yet this novel is only tolerable since the story that revolves around Billy is interesting.
Bernard and Winston both attempted to change their worlds. Winston tried to expose the government for what it really is and Bernard tried to shake up society with the appearance of John. Although they hadn`t succeeded, they at least attempted to make a difference and it is was makes their stories so great. Billy, however, is the exact opposite of these men. He is of no great importance and it is only by chance that he obtains the role of the main character in the novel. Bernard and Winston both set out to make an event while Billy allows the events to happen around him.
Billy has no goals in life, which causes him to just wander around aimlessly through time. This is because he already knows exactly what happens in the future, so he has nothing to look forward to, and thus leaving him lifeless. When one's left to believe that destiny is predetermined and any attempt to change is has already been foreseen, one would undoubtedly become dull as well since nothing can be done to change the future. This is what has happened to Billy and is why he never does anything out of the ordinary or try to change anything because he believes that it is fate. This makes Billy unlikeable by the audience because he never tries to do anything different. All in all, Billy could have had some improvements to his character like emotions that would have made him more bearable as a person.
Bernard and Winston both attempted to change their worlds. Winston tried to expose the government for what it really is and Bernard tried to shake up society with the appearance of John. Although they hadn`t succeeded, they at least attempted to make a difference and it is was makes their stories so great. Billy, however, is the exact opposite of these men. He is of no great importance and it is only by chance that he obtains the role of the main character in the novel. Bernard and Winston both set out to make an event while Billy allows the events to happen around him.
Billy has no goals in life, which causes him to just wander around aimlessly through time. This is because he already knows exactly what happens in the future, so he has nothing to look forward to, and thus leaving him lifeless. When one's left to believe that destiny is predetermined and any attempt to change is has already been foreseen, one would undoubtedly become dull as well since nothing can be done to change the future. This is what has happened to Billy and is why he never does anything out of the ordinary or try to change anything because he believes that it is fate. This makes Billy unlikeable by the audience because he never tries to do anything different. All in all, Billy could have had some improvements to his character like emotions that would have made him more bearable as a person.
Friday 11 March 2011
Re: Banning Books, Right or Wrong? - Milan, WA3
I find it ironic that Americans find it necessary to overglorify war. In the process, they ignore the negative effects of war. This does, in fact, match the Tralfamadorian view of focusing on the positive aspects of life. However, back at home Americans are almost encouraged to be pessimistic in their pursuit of prosperity and happiness. Of course this book doesn't reflect their views of war, because the average citizen's view on war is that it can be used for positive end results; the end justifies the means. However, the soldiers are aware of their experiences and realize the true hell that war proves itself to be time and time again. These soldiers in turn attempt to forget as much as possible their traumatizing experiences in order to move on with their lives. But in the process they begin to convince themselves that it was all worth it, and when something contradictory approaches them they feel offended that someone can even propose that the deaths of thousands of soldiers have been for nothing. So it goes.
Mothers may also feel offended because they are told their sons were killed bravely and partiotically fighting for their native country; all families are told exactly the same thing. But fathers who participated in WWI would be the most stricken by such news: they know what terrible atrocities their sons must have seen before they died; they never had the chance to see the truly beautiful moments of life.
Americans never truly grasp the significance of war, and with all likelihood they most likely never will. At home they are encouraged to forget about their tragic experiences, move on, and discontinue their reminiscing. Consequently, they once again conform to the majority in their glorification of war and, for the lower class, their everlasting struggle for prosperity. Do these weak-minded people have the right to even call out against others' opinions when they are ignorant of the facts? Or do they instead have the right to know the truth and choose whether to focus on the good or bad?
Only fate will tell.
But banning a book on account that it contradicts your beliefs is ludicrous. Furthermore, should you be ignorant to the validity of said beliefs, then you've more or less lost your 'right' to an opinion. Vonnegut stands to make a point with his novel, and that point does not include insulting those who choose to fight wars and those who choose to support them. Rather, his message aims to alter peoples' mindsets regarding the root of all wars: and that is people believe that wars are a necessary method to achieve whatever change they believe. Perhaps the means do indeed justify the end, but instead of promoting wars to change the bad in society people should promote social movements to improve the good.
However, this kind of thinking results in a system where the people are empowered to make a change. The only organizations that have the power to change the 'bad' are governments, and without this power governments would lose their iron grip over the populace. In some countries, this kind of thinking has begun to prevail (such as in Canada, where the people decided not to become a military superpower after World War II). But the majority of other countries, unfortunately, do not share our collective way of thinking, and this is who Vonnegut was targeting the message to.
If there would be anything to criticize in Vonnegut's novel it would be the subliminal insistence that the current society is wrong. Even though the Germans in the time period are humanized, they are still known to be monsters by readers that have learned anything about history in the past century. Americans instead take the sharp end of the spear, and their society is almost said to represent all of the developed countries in the world. Clearly, this cannot be true, as the non-developed countries do not share these 'bad' opinions as they have not yet been influenced by more powerful nations. To this day there are wars in the third-world nations of the world where people struggle over their beliefs.
Anyways, the main point here is that Vonnegut's novel deserves to be read by everyone. It is within their entitlements as human beings to have a choice as to how they want to live their lives. If other opinions are blocked out, people are denied the opportunity of living their life to how they see best. In the end, that is a matter which must be considered before thought-provoking novels such as Slaughterhouse-Five are denied from the eyes of readers.
Mothers may also feel offended because they are told their sons were killed bravely and partiotically fighting for their native country; all families are told exactly the same thing. But fathers who participated in WWI would be the most stricken by such news: they know what terrible atrocities their sons must have seen before they died; they never had the chance to see the truly beautiful moments of life.
Americans never truly grasp the significance of war, and with all likelihood they most likely never will. At home they are encouraged to forget about their tragic experiences, move on, and discontinue their reminiscing. Consequently, they once again conform to the majority in their glorification of war and, for the lower class, their everlasting struggle for prosperity. Do these weak-minded people have the right to even call out against others' opinions when they are ignorant of the facts? Or do they instead have the right to know the truth and choose whether to focus on the good or bad?
Only fate will tell.
But banning a book on account that it contradicts your beliefs is ludicrous. Furthermore, should you be ignorant to the validity of said beliefs, then you've more or less lost your 'right' to an opinion. Vonnegut stands to make a point with his novel, and that point does not include insulting those who choose to fight wars and those who choose to support them. Rather, his message aims to alter peoples' mindsets regarding the root of all wars: and that is people believe that wars are a necessary method to achieve whatever change they believe. Perhaps the means do indeed justify the end, but instead of promoting wars to change the bad in society people should promote social movements to improve the good.
However, this kind of thinking results in a system where the people are empowered to make a change. The only organizations that have the power to change the 'bad' are governments, and without this power governments would lose their iron grip over the populace. In some countries, this kind of thinking has begun to prevail (such as in Canada, where the people decided not to become a military superpower after World War II). But the majority of other countries, unfortunately, do not share our collective way of thinking, and this is who Vonnegut was targeting the message to.
If there would be anything to criticize in Vonnegut's novel it would be the subliminal insistence that the current society is wrong. Even though the Germans in the time period are humanized, they are still known to be monsters by readers that have learned anything about history in the past century. Americans instead take the sharp end of the spear, and their society is almost said to represent all of the developed countries in the world. Clearly, this cannot be true, as the non-developed countries do not share these 'bad' opinions as they have not yet been influenced by more powerful nations. To this day there are wars in the third-world nations of the world where people struggle over their beliefs.
Anyways, the main point here is that Vonnegut's novel deserves to be read by everyone. It is within their entitlements as human beings to have a choice as to how they want to live their lives. If other opinions are blocked out, people are denied the opportunity of living their life to how they see best. In the end, that is a matter which must be considered before thought-provoking novels such as Slaughterhouse-Five are denied from the eyes of readers.
Sunday 6 March 2011
Re: In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue... - Milan, WA2
This quote focuses on the benefits that came about as a result of discovering the Americas. However, the negatives must be forgotten because if they are not, we will always dwell on the past and create even more suffering in the future. Regardless of how unjust the past may be, it happened because it was meant to happen and because people wanted it that way. It cannot be changed.
If the entire world focused on the negative aspects of life, where would we be? Wars and suffering would be rampant because people, in all their anger of the flaws of the world, would constantly be fighting to change it. On the contrary, if people ignored the truths and improved the positive, then there would be much less suffering as people would be striving to improve the 'good' rather than fighting to change the bad. Through improving the good, the negatives will naturally dissipate.
Take the prison system, for example. Those fighting to focus on the bad and change it, would improve security on the prisons and encourage the imprisonment of criminals. This would solve, in part, the problem of crime. On the other hand, those improving the positive would focus on improving the legislation surrounding crimes, and thus limit it that way. Consequently, less crimes commited means less people in prison. So in both ways, the end result is achieved. However, instead of focusing on the negative one can alternately focus on the positive, achieve the same result, but limit the suffering of the people involved in the entire endeavour.
As you've said, history is indeed written by the victor. In most cases, the brutal truths are either lightly skimmed over or ignored completely. Why? If people were to fully understand the horrors of war, there would be massive upheavals in society; the balance of power would be disrupted, and due to the loss of societal stability more fighting could, and most likely would, erupt.
It is rarely the case where these brutal truths are exposed. When they are, in the case of WikiLeaks, an astonishing amount of controversy is caused. Now, sometimes this controversy is good because it enlightens the populace and gives them a better chance of keeping their 'freedoms'. In this case, it can be said that there's a grey area between focusing on the positive over the negative, and it's up to fate to decide what happens.
There will always be pain and suffering in the world, for that is the way of life and that is how all of our fates are intertwined. Whichever road you decide to travel on, there will always be someone on a better path and someone on a less fortunate route. Whatever we do, we do it because we think it will help us achieve some predetermined goal. We should make our choices so that our lives are the most fulfilling and absent of regret. Tralfamadorians do not tamper with fate because they understand that rather than the end justifying the means, the means is a part of the end. The beginning is the beginning of the end, while the end is a new beginning. Both are unchangeable.
If the entire world focused on the negative aspects of life, where would we be? Wars and suffering would be rampant because people, in all their anger of the flaws of the world, would constantly be fighting to change it. On the contrary, if people ignored the truths and improved the positive, then there would be much less suffering as people would be striving to improve the 'good' rather than fighting to change the bad. Through improving the good, the negatives will naturally dissipate.
Take the prison system, for example. Those fighting to focus on the bad and change it, would improve security on the prisons and encourage the imprisonment of criminals. This would solve, in part, the problem of crime. On the other hand, those improving the positive would focus on improving the legislation surrounding crimes, and thus limit it that way. Consequently, less crimes commited means less people in prison. So in both ways, the end result is achieved. However, instead of focusing on the negative one can alternately focus on the positive, achieve the same result, but limit the suffering of the people involved in the entire endeavour.
As you've said, history is indeed written by the victor. In most cases, the brutal truths are either lightly skimmed over or ignored completely. Why? If people were to fully understand the horrors of war, there would be massive upheavals in society; the balance of power would be disrupted, and due to the loss of societal stability more fighting could, and most likely would, erupt.
It is rarely the case where these brutal truths are exposed. When they are, in the case of WikiLeaks, an astonishing amount of controversy is caused. Now, sometimes this controversy is good because it enlightens the populace and gives them a better chance of keeping their 'freedoms'. In this case, it can be said that there's a grey area between focusing on the positive over the negative, and it's up to fate to decide what happens.
There will always be pain and suffering in the world, for that is the way of life and that is how all of our fates are intertwined. Whichever road you decide to travel on, there will always be someone on a better path and someone on a less fortunate route. Whatever we do, we do it because we think it will help us achieve some predetermined goal. We should make our choices so that our lives are the most fulfilling and absent of regret. Tralfamadorians do not tamper with fate because they understand that rather than the end justifying the means, the means is a part of the end. The beginning is the beginning of the end, while the end is a new beginning. Both are unchangeable.
Thursday 3 March 2011
In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue... - John
This year is often remembered as the one where the British colonies first discovered North America, land that they would take for themselves and force the indigenous population out of. Kurt Vonnegut is right in stating that this was the year in which pirates robbed, cheated, and killed those who wished to live full and prosperous lives. It is not a year to remember for the brave and noble actions of the first explorers, but a year to mourn the loss and destruction of a once great group of people.
There's a well-known saying that's been accredited by Winston Churchill: History is written by the victors. This saying has been held to be true throughout history. Those who lose don't have the power to oppose those that win, so anything the winner declares will be stated as true and righteous. In this case, we are meant to see only the good as dictated by the conquerers, which is in this case the foreign pirates. We are also told so little and sometimes even nothing about the evils done to accomplish these goals, but simply ignoring the unsatisfactory truths will not yield a brighter future. By making those who are ignorant of the cruel injustices see the brighter side of things, they belittle the crimes that they committed to accomplish such goals. This is what is meant through the quote, as the children are meant to remember the year as a glorious year, where British colonies were first established, and not of the overtaking of the Natives' land.
This can also be seen clearly in the novel SH5, where the bombing of Dresden was suppose to be remembered as simply the means to an end, yet Vonnegut urges us to remember the people that had once lived in this town. This is why he describes the town in such a normal state, to show people that those fought in wars are not evil humans, but regular people. They live normals lives, toiling from day to day, like many people of the world. The bombing of Dresden is seen as a tragic event that had to have happened to ensure that the Germans surrendered, but through Billy's eyes, we can see that this is not the case. The young girls who lived in Dresden had done nothing wrong, but as Professor Rumford stated: "it had to be done". News of this bombing was also withheld until years into the future, where the impact of such news has been greatly diminished. This is an unjust act of violence and it should never have been committed and any and all future events as such shouldn't be grazed over as this event has been.
The quote demonstrates how people will try to forget the negatives through focusing on the positives, yet this is certainly not the proper method of handling the situation. By focusing on the positives, you do not eliminate the negatives. There will still be pain and suffering in the world even if you try to avoid them. The tralfamadorians focus solely on the positive side of life and ignore the bad things that do happen, yet if they themselves tried to stop unwanted events from occurring, they could have saved the engineer from testing the new fuel. It is not a good idea to leave the bad events as they are but to help correct them, since leaving bad things as they are will not change them for the better.
There's a well-known saying that's been accredited by Winston Churchill: History is written by the victors. This saying has been held to be true throughout history. Those who lose don't have the power to oppose those that win, so anything the winner declares will be stated as true and righteous. In this case, we are meant to see only the good as dictated by the conquerers, which is in this case the foreign pirates. We are also told so little and sometimes even nothing about the evils done to accomplish these goals, but simply ignoring the unsatisfactory truths will not yield a brighter future. By making those who are ignorant of the cruel injustices see the brighter side of things, they belittle the crimes that they committed to accomplish such goals. This is what is meant through the quote, as the children are meant to remember the year as a glorious year, where British colonies were first established, and not of the overtaking of the Natives' land.
This can also be seen clearly in the novel SH5, where the bombing of Dresden was suppose to be remembered as simply the means to an end, yet Vonnegut urges us to remember the people that had once lived in this town. This is why he describes the town in such a normal state, to show people that those fought in wars are not evil humans, but regular people. They live normals lives, toiling from day to day, like many people of the world. The bombing of Dresden is seen as a tragic event that had to have happened to ensure that the Germans surrendered, but through Billy's eyes, we can see that this is not the case. The young girls who lived in Dresden had done nothing wrong, but as Professor Rumford stated: "it had to be done". News of this bombing was also withheld until years into the future, where the impact of such news has been greatly diminished. This is an unjust act of violence and it should never have been committed and any and all future events as such shouldn't be grazed over as this event has been.
The quote demonstrates how people will try to forget the negatives through focusing on the positives, yet this is certainly not the proper method of handling the situation. By focusing on the positives, you do not eliminate the negatives. There will still be pain and suffering in the world even if you try to avoid them. The tralfamadorians focus solely on the positive side of life and ignore the bad things that do happen, yet if they themselves tried to stop unwanted events from occurring, they could have saved the engineer from testing the new fuel. It is not a good idea to leave the bad events as they are but to help correct them, since leaving bad things as they are will not change them for the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)