Blog Post Report #1
Kurt Vonnegut includes himself as not only the narrator but also a character in Slaughterhouse Five to add credibility to the story, strongly suggesting non-fictional occurrences. This is a strong theory because of three key pieces of textual evidence that will be discussed. The first piece of evidence was when the character Billy encountered Wild Bob, a delirious colonel and the author mentioned himself in the scene. Another instance of the author mentioning himself in the story was when Billy was at the latrine section of the compound and mentions himself in dialogue. Finally, the last instance of the author mentioning himself in the story was in the boxcar arrival to Dresden scene.
Starting with the first instance of the author mentioning himself in the story was shortly after Billy was captured and taken to a collection of POW's being transported. In this passage in reaction to a character named Wild Bob the author says, "I was there. So was my old war buddy, Bernard V. O’Hare” (Vonnegut 86). This passage clearly suggests that the narrator has now become a presence in the story. It alludes to him admitting he was there, in that moment and going so far as to make sure the reader knows he was not only a person in that event but also the narrator.
In another instance of the author outing himself in the text, Vonnegut mentions himself in the latrine scene following a feast held for the Americans. In the passage he says, " That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book" (Vonnegut 160). This passage to me clearly shows Vonnegut describe his experience in that moment, him being the one on the latrine speaking about excreting his brains out, vocalizing himself. I feel this is the most clear-cut proof in my theory of Vonnegut experiencing the story first hand, making it likely a mix of fiction and non-fiction.
The last passage I found where Vonnegut is referring to himself was a passage regarding the Americans arrival to Dresden. In it he states, " Somebody behind him in the boxcar said, "Oz." That was I. That was me. The only other city I'd ever seen was Indianapolis, Indiana" (Vonnegut 189). So, Vonnegut was there in Dresden and experienced the bombing firsthand. This makes sense since his major focus as he states early on was to write about Dresden, despite it being of little known significance to most who inquired on his writings post war. I believe he felt that inserting himself in his own book would add a sense of credibility to his description of war firsthand as opposed to imagined or second-hand which would detract from its impact.
Vonnegut mentions himself in the book multiple times to relay a sense of credibility I feel. He's very confusing in the way in which he executes it, seemingly in random moments in Billy's story, but I feel there is something more to it than that. Perhaps he knew or observed the character portrayed by Billy and later interviewed him to include him as a main character of focus in the book. I believe Vonnegut imprinted many of Billy's thoughts or experiences as a symbol of a much deeper symptom of the wars cost. The cost to American culture, and the desensitization that took hold of its people, changing them forever.
-Josh N.
Vonnegut, Kurt. Slaughterhouse Five. Dial Press Trade. 2009.
The way Slaughterhouse Five was written was very interesting, and I liked the fact that Kurt Vonnegut included himself in the story. Relating Slaughterhouse Five and our textbook, How to Interpret literature really helped me understand how Vonnegut wrote it. The structure of the book had a lot to do with the tale and the telling, which we read about in the chapter of structuralism in our textbook. Vonnegut wrote the book as if he was telling us what was happening rather than writing a story in the exact order they happened.
It was not like a tale, which in the book How to Interpret Literature on page 65 is written as the sequence of events in the order they are told. In Slaughterhouse Five it is obvious that the events that are happening or being told to the readers are not in the right order, because Billy jumps through time and it goes from one year to another. On page 29 in Slaughterhouse Five it says “Billy is spastic in time, has no control over where he is going next, and the trips aren’t necessarily fun.” which is the beginning of chapter two when you start to realize the events happening to Billy will not be in chronological order.
In the telling versus the tale it gives readers their own way of interpreting the story. it is defined as the sequence of events in a story the order they are told. The telling leaves some things out of the story. That may make the readers question some things. In Slaughterhouse Five, Vonnegut had a quote on page 77, “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference”. It made sense and went along with the story as to where it was located and how it was explained in the context. However, when you get to the last chapter, after reading most of the book, it relates to another part of the story as well. On Montana Wildhack’s locket it also had the same quote. When finding out that quote was in her necklace it gave helped me put the story in order.
Vonnegut left out Montana Wildhack’s locket in the beginning and told the readers about it at the end. He left us thinking that the quote only had to do with the method that kept Billy going in life. When realizing that Montana’s locket had the same quote that kept Billy going you could have interpreted that in several ways. One way a reader could interpret it is by thinking that Montana could have become Billy’s reason to keep going. The way I interpreted it was the Tralfamadorians were Billy’s reason to keep going. They made him look at life in a different way. And though he could not change the past, present, and future. He could change the way he looked at it.
There is always a reason the telling differs from the tale. It may give the story a different meaning. But the person telling the story always has a reason for telling it in a different order than they happened. In Slaughterhouse Five I believe it could have been for the suspense. I do think Vonnegut told the story in a way that was perfect for the type of book and for the readers who would read it. It made us question why everything was happening and for what reasons and towards the end all our questions were answered.
-Mattisyn Woods, revised
Slaughterhouse Five is a novel that, to say it lightly, messes with your idea of reality. With hints of science fiction and lots of war tales, the narrator takes the reader through a whirlwind of events that at times, don’t seem to connect in any way. As I read this novel, I found myself questioning what I think I know and what is true in this novel due to the unreliability presented by the narrator. The narrator at times doesn’t seem to be fully confident that all he says in the novel is true. This is an aspect of the novel that I found interesting, yet perplexing.
When I first began reading Slaughterhouse Five, I was startled by the lack of reliability the narrator presents on the first page of the book when it states that “the war parts, anyway, are pretty much true.” (pg 1). Pretty much true. Reading that rises questions to what parts of the book are going to be real or not. As I continued reading I noticed some subtle repetition by the narrator. This caused me to wonder, is the narrator struggling with memory loss or a mental illness? As I continued to read, the repetition continued. His reference to his “mustard gas and roses” breath seen first on page 5 repeated on page 9, both in the same context. This hints further that the narrator cannot be trusted fully because he isn’t connecting with reality completely and tells readers most of the things he says is true. Even through a fictional lens, it is still an uneasy feeling to be unsure of anything the narrator is saying.
The narrator is unreliable according to the definition of an unreliable narrator found in How To Interpret Literature in chapter 3 on page 69. Since I as a reader don’t have a sound perspective on war and the stories that happened, I can’t trust that the narrators case and stories are true, it is simply a one-sided perspective. The narrator doesn’t provide any concrete evidence in the novel that gives the readers a sound idea of what war is first. All we get is a biased recall of events. We just see his interpretation and we only have his interpretation to rely on, this continues to have me question the whole story as a reader. With events like war, Kurt Vonnegut should incorporate facts into the story in order to give an unbiased foundation or introduction to war, before delving into a personal perspective on it. This would help the reader understand the narrator’s perspective better because there is a reference point provided.
Overall, the repetition and lack of confidence regarding memory of the narrator causes the readers to question the narrator’s reliability; something we all want to be able to do as readers. True, this is a clever tactic to keep readers on their toes, however for myself, it is quite hard to follow and believe. Certain parts seem so sure, yet with the repetition it pulls me out of the story and reminds me that it is fiction.
Anna Newman, revised
For this first blog report, I will be focusing on the short story "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson. "The Lottery" is a literary depiction of the events that occurred during World War II. The story focuses on the scapegoating of the Jewish people during the time. Jackson's use of symbolism of the black box, the analyzation of old man Warner’s statement, and the unsettling ending of the story allowed for the connecting to the idea of the Holocaust to become more developed and evolved toward the climax of the story.
The meaning behind the black box in the story is one that represents many aspects of the townspeople and Jewish lives. One example of this is the color of the box. Black usually represents death and mourning. The Holocaust can be depicted and colored in black for death, which was hanging around in the Jewish concentration camps, and in the ash from the gas chambers that would flow down on the prisoners. Another meaning behind the box was that it held the fate of the townspeople. No one in the town wanted to be near the box and keep their distance from it (pg. 1). With this sort of depiction of fate, the destiny of the Jews were being decided by the people that stood by the sidelines, just like the townspeople who did not want anything to do with the black box.
The message behind old man Warner’s statement is one that develops the idea of starvation and reasoning. When the knowledge of other villages were giving up on the lottery, old man Warner stated, “ 'Used to be a saying about ‘Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon’;First thing you know, we’d all be eating stewed chickweed and acorns; There’s always been a lottery…'” (pg. 4). The idea behind old man Warner’s rant, is the idea that by doing the lottery, the townspeople were not starving but also saving their traditions. This connects to the idea of the Jewish persecution that by sending the Jews away to work camps, the national citizens of the country would not starve (even with a war going on).
Yet the ambiguous ending of the story is what connects the two ideas together. With the fate of Tessie Hutchinson being sealed, the people she considered her neighbors preyed upon her as she continued to scream “‘It isn’t fair, it isn’t right’” (pg. 7). The screams of Mrs. Hutchinson, associate with the screams of the Jewish people who were inhumanely being deported and knowingly/unknowingly slaughtered in gas chambers. Both the Jewish people and Mrs. Hutchinson, were both killed, but for what reason? At the end of the story, there is an understanding that this was supposed to happen, that someone had to die for the greater good of the town; but in the case of the Holocaust, why were the Jewish people being targeted? Why did they have to die?
The literary elements in the story, "The Lottery", coincide with the Holocaust of World War II. The symbolism of the black box depicted the fate of the people in the story's community and the Jews during the war. The analyzation of old man Warner’s rant brushed on the topic of starvation for both the town and the non-Jewish people of Europe. And finally the moral sense of injustice that both Tessie Hutchinson and the Jewish people were being killed for. These ideas are ones that make the connection to the social injustice and traditions that “had” to occur for the betterment of a continent and the basis for Mrs. Jackson's story, "The Lottery".
Jessica Fehrman