Response to Zach - John

Wow, zach's blog has come a long way from when I first saw it a few weeks after we had initially started this project. I remember back when we had begun our third or fourth topic, i believe, when Zach had so little work done. But just 2 months and a lot of dedication later, Zach's blog has far surpassed any expectations that I've once held for it. Brimming with creativity and ideas, I feel glad to have read all of the posts that Zach has made. There's so much I'd like to discuss about your ideas, but i'll refrain from commenting on all of them, so i'll stick with the bare minimum of 3.

The first topic that piqued my interest is the one about censorship. Now on my blog, i had previously thought that censorship was a viable solution to certain problems, but now your post has made me think a little bit more about this certain topic. I now believe that censorship shouldn't be allowed in this day and age but back then, novels like Slaughterhouse probably were that bad. As you have said, we have become far more slack in our use of sexuality and language, which is why Slaughterhouse is not so controversial today, but who knows how they lived in the old days, maybe even mentioning the war led to suspicion. Maybe it's because of when Vonnegut wrote his book that it came under fire instead of what his book is about. And also, history books are much more factual than what Vonnegut wrote, which was opinion-based, so the depiction of soldiers and such vary and also lead to these types of book to be banned rather than history books.

The second topic that i liked was the first one about fate vs. free will. I've always been a believer of how nothing is ever predetermined. I agree with you completely on your life choices affect your future, and not fate. When you try harder, then you will succeed far more often. Effort should correlate with success in life while fate shouldn't. The belief in fate, in my opinion anyways, is very ridiculous. If you believed that moments in life are structured to happen a certain way, what motivation would you have to attempt anything? You wouldn't try to be successful because if you were destined to be successful, then it should happen, weather you try or not, which in my opinion, is the worst idea possible. Barrack Obama didn't become president by staying home and watching movies, he pushed himself to become a powerful and influential man.

Your post about Vonnegut's history is very interesting since I also think that Vonnegut defending the Germans very well through the novel. I couldn't agree more about how prevents this by giving the enemies a face, such as with the average citizens of Dresden or even the people who had arrested Billy and Weary. When I read the book, they did seem like average citizens and it made me question weather or not it was right to take their lives, even to end the war. Personally though, I think that the Germans were justified in trying to regain power during WWII (excluding the whole Holocaust thing), since they were just trying to rebuild their country. After the end of WWI, Germany was devastated, poor, and the ridicule of the world. A huge amount of debt was forced onto their shoulders and it was not fair. I also agree that assimilation and cultural conformity should be based on the will of the individual, but sometimes it's just not possible. Just imagine, how would a woodcutter be able to function properly in New York City? People have been forced to assimilate to be able to function in society. I'd love to see a world where everyone can live the way that they want to live, but assimilation does happen forcefully all the time, such as with the native people and even the crusades.

All in all, your blog was very enjoyable to read. Your writing style is very straightforward and i really like the ideas that you wrote about. I think that you put a lot of effort into this blog and it's a really good blog overall. Having now read your blog, I've become quite fearful for mine as it pales in comparison. Anyways, now I need to polish off my own blog.

Response Post

For my response post, I've decided to take a look at Aaron's Blog. While reading through his posts, I find that I get to see a completely different perspective at the novel. But, it's a humorous perspective that retains that severity of the concepts involved. Indeed, it embodies the positive nature that I think Vonnegut would wish everyone had. That, primarily, is what drew me in and kept me reading throughout.

Just a note to make, for whatever reason I read the blog from most recent to latest, so all of my thoughts actually start opposite from when Aaron wrote the posts.

Anyways, that's not to say that I didn't have some conflicting ideas with Aaron. For example, when he wrote:

There is some speculation on our favourite theme of Fate duking it out with Free Will. In SH5 we see the Tralfamadorians and their idea of Fate reigning supreme. But in 2BR02B,  people are able to call the number 2BR02B and book an appointment to die in a gas chamber (they do this when they want to volunteer to die in order to serve the future generations). Yayyy. Sounds a lot like Free Will to me if people have the choice to pick their deathday, not birthday.

I felt that the definition of fate and free will are a bit blurred. Fate is something that is set in stone and cannot be changed; it is something that no one knows. Meanwhile, life is when free will and choice occurs, which is what Aaron is referring to. I think this might've been what he was getting at, but it wasn't stated explicitly. I think often people mix up the terms fate and life in the sense that they define fate as your set of choices in life, while fate is actually the set of choices you are bound to make in life (thus setting it apart from life itself). People can pick how they want to live their lives, and in this case picking when to die, but their fate is forever unchangeable.

But immediately after, the subject of Vonnegut's dark humour was touched upon. Right away, I remembered in the first chapter of SH5 when I read "there must have been tons of human bone meal in the ground". I chuckled a bit since it seems such a grotesque picture to paint out of nowhere, and the true significance of the statement takes a while to get to you. As with Aaron, Vonnegut's creativity never ceases to make me chuckle.

Speaking of creativity, I enjoyed reading the blog post on parodies of famous novels. Larry Potter and Hermyknee Ranger are just two of a number of tidbits in the post that made me chuckle or smile. I think that fans of the subject matter would actually appreciate the humour as it is refreshing to see something you like presented in a different way, especially when it's amusing.

And now that we're on the topic of amusement, Aaron's warped narrative reminds me of all of the Failblog videos I've seen. Even though I know that sometimes the people in the videos must be getting hurt (to varying degrees), I can't stop laughing at the scenario that they've put themselves in. In that respect, I find that I'm not only similar to Vonnegut's style of humour but also Aaron's. I know that I've had my own veritable share of "fail" experiences. His last sentence in the warped narrative was a good way to end it off and really relate it back to Vonnegut's humour: If Aaron were in Charlie’s place, he would have died…

Aaron's post on censorship really had me agreeing with him. These days, people are surrounded by so many conflicting opinions that they really get lost in blaming someone for their misfortunes. Oftentimes, literature gets blamed for its negative effects. Ulga Hoffstadder, with her few sentences on Dr. Seuss' book, is a paragon for ignorance for everyone. Without commenting on her intelligence, I'll say that her failure to see the words beyond the words leaves me without words of my own. . .

Regardless, I very much enjoyed reading Aaron's blog. Aside from his humorous posts, you can still pick up a different perspective of things. Reading his blog, I really get a sense of connection and similarity between his words and my own. Maybe it was fate that made me post about Aaron's blog. No, wait. It WAS fate that made me post about Aaron's blog, but it was my choice in my life to do so. Now try and see what I mean by that.

Being Able to See the Future - Milan, OWA4

Would being able to see the future actually be beneficial? Would it give someone the chance to right a wrong that they commit before one even does it? Or are there "rules" to doing as such?

I don't believe that one would be able to see the future and change something to affect it. What would be the point of seeing the future if you could change it? Obviously, any change you intend to do after seeing the future would have already been taken into account when you saw it. Even if this were not true, changing events to try and alter events in the future could have a cascade effect of unprecedented proportions, thus irrevocably changing that future that you saw, thus rendering your whole purpose pointless (it could be that this entire process is some kind of paradox). This is, I believe, where the idea of fate comes from in SH5.

Billy in SH5 has the ability to see the future, but either chooses to be lax about it or he physically cannot change what he sees. Perhaps this is indeed a result of him knowing that upon seeing the future, he knows what his fate is. And since one cannot change fate, his future is set in stone. However, without knowing one's fate, one has no idea what can happen in life. Therefore, regardless of the fact that fate is existent, the choices one makes can still impact one's future. Of course, having said this, I do not speak for my own beliefs, but rather for what the novel attempts to bring across. Indeed, there are other messages tied in with this prevalent theme of fate and existentialism which develop the idea more. For now, however, the topic is on fate itself.

Life is different from fate. In life, one can choose everything and there is always an option to do something. Fate is set in stone. The two cannot, and must not, be confused for the debate on fate to continue. Thus, I believe that everyone has a set of events that is meant to happen to them. But, as I said earlier, these remain unknown until they occur, so it is still possible to live life choosing what you want to happen to you. But, as per the definition of fate, these were meant to happen. People are not meant to know their fate, but rather live their lives in the best way they can.

If I had the option to see my fate/future (however you want to call it), I would opt out of it. What is the point of living one's life if there is no sense of mystery? Life is all about making choices and living to experience the consequences. If these consequences are already known, then it's just a matter of living life until you die. That, in itself, is a truly depressing thought to even think about.

So, is knowing the future a choice that one could make? Perhaps, if you want to be martyr for other humans. But as an option for a person to do it for oneself, the consequences of doing such are unknown and potentially eternally depressing. Billy can perhaps be feeling the effects of constantly knowing his fate. With that in mind, perhaps Vonnegut simply wanted all of us to stop worrying so much about our futures and just live life as it is meant to be lived: without regret.

Kevin Carter and the Sudanese girl - John

This is the infamous photograph of the Sudanese girl, if anyone's read my post about my ideas on writing my own novel. It shows a starving girl crawling towards a feeding center while the vulture waits for the poor girl to die. Kevin Carter was infamous due to the fact that he had not done anything to help the girl, but instead waited the vulture to spread his wings and take the picture. After a while, Kevin Carter got impatient and simply took the picture without the vulture spreading it's wings. No one knows exactly what happened to the girl, weather she died of starvation or she crawled to salvation, but I pray for the latter option to have taken place.

This picture has nothing to do with Slaughterhouse but it does have to do with the blog post about our own ideas on novels.

Also, I would like to note that this is an enormous reason as to why I do not and will not ever believe in fate. It should not ever be the fate of some poor child to starve to death. No person should have the right to look at this image and say: "That was her fate." This is clearly not true as people such as Kevin Carter had the choice to stop what was happening. He had the ability to help but rather chose not to. World hunger is not a problem that's beyond the powers of human society. It is not fate that has led to millions of humans to die of starvation but rather apathy for those in need that have caused us to choose this world filled with pain and sorrow. Fate is no excuse for why things happen the way they do. Choices are what determine the outcome of a situation.

Why SH5 Should Never be Adapted into Film - Milan, OWA3

It has been tried before. The word on the street is that the movie doesn't perform as well as it could have what the novel intended. Is this coincidence? Or is it actually a result of the fact that the book was never written to be adapted into the forms that modern film take today?

The truth is, when Vonnegut finished writing SH5, his intention was not to create an entertaining novel, per se, but rather to make a point. His elimination of suspense throughout the story (by revealing events prematurely) and lack of character development in Billy (creating a character that cannot be sympathised with) results in a novel that lacks the fundamentals for a movie with which people can enjoy. Granted, it can be said that these forms of writing were employed in order to create more focus on the messages in the novel. However, the results of which create a novel that is not appealing to the general public.

Getting the themes and points of SH5 across in a movie as effectively as the novel (arguably) does, would involve changing the storyline in order to make Billy a relatable character. I believe that doing so takes away from what makes Vonnegut's book unique; it would take away the essence of the story in order to make it a Hollywood hit. If you turn an orange blue, it's no longer an orange.

But, if we were to assume that a film would not attempt to make the movie in the form of how many movies are made today (to make money), then it would be possible for the novel to be re-written for a screenplay. Indeed, doing so would be risking thousands of dollars on the notion that the movie would sell as well as the novel. Not doing so, I believe, would discredit the principles that the novel was written upon.

In addition, the movie can be loosely based upon SH5 in such a way that the fundamental themes are still represented. They can be shown in such a way that they are intriguing and encourage any watchers of the film to create their own opinions of the subject matter within the film. If they are interested enough, they may even delve into the novel itself when previously they may never have given the notion a passing thought. In this way, the novel can be used to slightly simplify the messages from SH5 to make them more appealing and thus draw more people in to the enlightenment that Vonnegut was hoping to achieve.

In short, SH5 cannot be taken lightly. Reformatting it into a movie that can make money on its own should not be the attempt of any film director: the novel, as it stands, is not made for such transformations. A direct screenplay of the novel would be possible, but would risk in the loss of thousands of dollars and man-hours from its creation. As I said above, a movie that is perhaps somewhat based on the themes from the novel may prove to be more plausible. Quite simply, Vonnegut's eye-opening piece literature should be given the same credit in its film adaptation. Anything less would result in the dishonour, not only to Vonnegut, but to all the readers of the novel who have taken from it as much as they could.

How Vonnegut's writing style annoys me - John

Anyone else feel that Vonnegut's gone of on way too many tangents in Slaughterhouse five? There seems to be an abundance of unneeded fluff in his writing. Things like Maggie, the stereotypical dumb blonde who seems to serve no purpose whatsoever in the novel or Vonnegut's descriptions of Kilgore Trout's novels and what happens in them. Is knowing if Jesus really died or his height before his death in Kilgore Trout's novel really going to change my understanding of the book? I have come to see Vonnegut's writing as what i'd like to call verbal diarrhea on a silver platter. The novel might have taken many years to write, but the fashion in which it is written appears to me as a non-stop stream of thoughts that have been slightly cleaned up in the end.Vonnegut's gone off on so many tangents that it has become difficult to tell which facts are actually important and which ones are just simply pointless (A.K.A. the reason why i will fail the content quiz).

Novels should provide a clear and understandable vision of what the author wants to show, but Slaughterhouse only comes off as a jumble of madness. This writing style is suppose to represent the distorted mayhem of war the message is so incomprehensible that few will ever relate it to war. It wasn't even until this matter came up in class that I even considered that there was a reason behind the madness. The messages that other people seem to get from the novel just doesn't come to me. I didn't see the relation between war and the distortion, and this may be due to my lack of knowledge on war, but the relation between these 2 weren't so clear. If an important message is to be given through a novel, it should be crystal clear to see within the book or many readers will not catch what could be the most significant part of the book.

"The Prestige" and How its Plot Matches Up with Slaughterhouse-Five - Milan, OWA2

 Slaughterhouse-Five is unique in its various facets and the messages that it attempts to shed light on in order to enlighten readers is truly a unique experience. However, that is not to say that it cannot be relatable to any other piece of art in the sense of its chaotic and non-linear storyline progression. The movie "The Prestige", with its alluring plot of magicians and their rivalries is more than meets the eye, literally. It's an excellent film that compares with Slaughterhouse-Five in some fashion, but goes completely the other way in others.

The movie begins with no sense of direction as Christopher Nolan spins a concoction of events in an attempt to primarily draw in the audience. At the same time, he creates an atmosphere of mystery. Soon, the film begins jumping through scenes in various timelines as it warps between different events. Much like Billy Pilgrim's time traveling, the movie does indeed do the same thing. The two main characters (for each are each others antagonist), Angier and Borden, host their own magic shows in an attempt to outdo the other and make their claim to fame, so to speak. Over the course of the movie, one slowly begins to piece everything together until the film's culmination; its final enlightenment.

This movie instantly reminded me of SH5 with this kind of plot. However, there are some stark contrasts between the two, primarily being that The Prestige ends with a clear-cut cliffhanger (leaving one to think a little), while Slaugterhouse-Five's ending leaves a reader with a completely open-ended finale and no way to discern with complete confidence what the author intended. In a way, this matches up with the novel's existentialist themes (among other messages).

But, the similarities for the most part end there. Whether or not there is some kind of internal message within The Prestige is up for debate as it's a movie made for entertainment. SH5 definately has messages hidden whose discovery falls on the individual reader. And while Billy is not a character one can relate to, Angier is definately the character that is portrayed to be more likable in the movie. Character development is also present in The Prestige, while in SH5 it's completely absent in Billy. Speaking of characters, SH5 is completely absent of any love interest while The Prestige has a number of them. In addition to these lovers, the people in The Prestige have well-defined goals while Billy has none. All of these factors make watchers feel sympathetic to The Prestige, while Billy is simply used as an eyehole to look at society. In this respect, the two pieces of art are completely different.

It is true that in each case the character contributes in either bringing across the message or being the main proponent in progressing the storyline. I feel that in both cases the character choices were justified as they achieve (what I believe to be) their intended goals, whether it be their own or the author's. Both The Prestige and SH5 are similar, yet they are different. Indeed, quite like apples and oranges, they are both fruit; yet they both have different tastes, colours, and textures that set them apart. That is, in the end, what makes any one thing different from anything else and enjoyable in its own way.