Ginzulitzer Prize, and goodbye!

It seems that this project is reaching an end, after all I am on the final post and after this one wraps it up. So it goes. But before the final blow, I am going to discuss what I thought of another's blogger's blog. And the winner is... * drum roll please! * my friend Vy's blog: http://viidragon.wordpress.com .

I will discuss the ideas, topics and stylistics of Vy's three blog posts.

When there’s a will, there’s a way. But when there’s Billy Pilgrim, there’s Paul Lazzaro 

I have to agree, Vonnegut is a genius in thinking up a nut case like Paul Lazzaro. I mean this man is completely messed up as proven by his raping, murdering, and threatening tendencies. I really enjoyed the amount of language you incorporated in your detailed account of your disgust of Paul Lazzaro. Vonnegut really does leave it for us to guess how he wound up to be this way, but you make a fine guess. 

The feeling that I were Paul Lazzaro as I was reading it-- it made the post personal. You  addressed him and try to tell him in a semi-friendly manner to stop being a mental nut case, and go seek some therapy. I admire you for it, but I really wouldn't suggest you pulling through if he was actually alive... as you might walk to your front door one day and be shot in the groin. (yay). 

But on the topic of how he actually became the thing he is now, I do sympathize with him. I mean, all the murderers, criminals and horrible monsters that are out there were children once. And they were raised to be like this either through abusive parents or horrible experiences. So in the end its not REALLY their fault, they're just victims of society. If I was in charge of Lazzaro's sentencing or punishment, I would think that sending him to death penalty or life in prison is unfair. Rather, he should be sent to some kind of therapy institution where his deep emotional problems would be addressed and he would be able to recover from whatever made him like this.

Poo-tee-weet. Twitter, twitter.

Haha! It is quite unsatisfactory to end a book like this with the chirpings of some bird. However, I think that the bird had its own significance: that there was really nothing left to say about war. War is war. Perhaps I'm over thinking it and Vonnegut just intended to end the book with something random.

You should read one of my earlier blog posts where I discussed how I thought Vonnegut just had a severe case of writer's block and decided to mix together his life experience, his beliefs and a few ideas to make a satisfactory book with quite a bit of un-needed filler. Considering the man took years to write this book, its not surprising that he's hasty to just get it over with and leave us unhappy with the ending, (unless he meant it to be that way, in which case props to him even though I don't understand!).

And yes, Vonnegut did have a view interesting quotes in there that really did supplement the book. Each one was thought provoking and aided the "Fate" idea. The picture were... interesting. Vonnegut likes strange pictures though (ahem horses and breasts)!

Like a fireworks display!

Woah! What a gruesome introduction, even for something reflecting Vonnegut... "the cherry colored liquid..". I can imagine it slowly diluting itself in the pool... many thanks for that image, Vy! And you definitely did not write "So it goes!", gah. A joke too far. It relays the message quite well, the idea of fate and upcoming doom. Although your friend might of deserved it if 'she and her boyfriend where making out with someone! However I feel that might of been a typo.

Very Billy Pilgramish set of mind there. But also so very obnoxious! You should at least of warned your cheating friend, I mean if its you that are going to die, its your own choice! But anyways... I enjoyed your descriptions of Vietnam. I felt some nostalgia as you wrote about this vacation. I don't really understand how this is connected to the experience with your cousin however. 

Congradulations Vy! You're literature has just been analyzed. It has received the Ginzulitzer Prize. Just a few notes before I hand it out. I really enjoy your forth-right style which had much sarcasm and because of this was entertaining to read. Your ideas were very interesting and I agreed with you for the majority of the points. Your posts feel extremely genuine and personal and thats something you should preserve since thats how readers can relate to you. Good job blogging!

And on that note, I'd like to thank everyone who read my blog posts, (including those from China, Denmark, Netherlands and South Korea... I wonder where you found my post though!). Its been an interesting experience sharing my thoughts of a considerably good book. On on that note-

So it goes.

-Daniel

For All Your Vonnegutian Needs

At long last, my final post. The lucky blog that I have selected to review is one of the most creative blogs that I have read this unit. My final post is dedicated to Zach's blog on Slaughterhouse-Five.


Censorship S*cks
In this blog post, Zach makes a number of good arguments, all of which I can agree with. Zach starts by making the claim that "a book that generates talk or “controversy” for whatever reason is a good book" and I concur; if a book leaves a reader with a lasting impact, whether positive or negative, it has done its job. Vonnegut even provides the reader with a disclaimer in the first chapter, claiming that his novel would castigate the atrocities of war. From this warning alone, one can determine that the book will likely contain violence and profanity, and an individual that opposes both should put the book down and read something else.


Another point that Zach makes is that the severity of the "controversial" content is ridiculously low. As a reader, I did not realize that I was reading content that was "out of line" until it was pointed out to me, due to the fact that profanity and sexual references have become so common in society today. Zach writes that the F-bomb is dropped constantly in schools today, as students use is as a verb, noun, or adjective whenever need be. However, "when this “profane language” is written down in a book for people to read, alarms go off." An unfortunate characteristic of society is that it holds a double-standard for realistic literature; an author is expected to depict society as truthfully as possible, yet he/she is expected to leave out all of its negative aspects. As "controversial" as some of the content may seem, it is required in order to uphold the realism (besides the aliens and time-travel) of the novel.


Multiculturalism > COMPLETE Assimilation
Once again, I agree with the ideas presented by Zach in this post. Vonnegut appears to be an author who writes more for himself than others; he has nothing to prove. For this reason, I believe that he would have nothing to gain from casting the Germans under a better light. As Zach states, "[Vonnegut]  just wrote it how it was, and how he saw it." From Vonnegut's experiences as a POW, one can assume that he came in contact with Germans quite often. To Vonnegut, the Germans themselves were not the enemy; their leaders were the ones waging the war. In Zach's own words, Vonnegut "gives the enemy a face" to demonstrate that the Germans were 'people' too.


I also shares Zach's views on the issue of assimilation, as everyone should be proud of their culture and past. Even though everyone should be proud of their heritage, many individuals aren't, as their culture could be associated with countless stereotypes. In Vonnegut's case, Germans were given a bad repute in North America, due to the fact that they were viewed as corrupt and barbaric. As Zach states, assimilation in never justifiable, and cultural conformity is the coward's way out.


What Would Vonnegut Think?
I concur that Vonnegut would approve of our blogging assignment due to the fact that we're "doing exactly what he did, except in a different form." As Zach states, "Whatever message [Vonnegut] wanted to voice, he would voice it through writing. And that's basically what a blog is: having an opinion and then voicing it by posting it for the entire world to see." If Vonnegut were still alive, I'm confident that he would have been a blogger instead of an author. As I already mentioned, Vonnegut wrote more for himself than others, and his novels were used as a means of getting his ideas across. With the expansion of the Internet, it has become easier for an individual to do just that, as setting up a blog in today's day and age takes no longer than a few minutes. Even though blogs may not be as successful as novels, "the message [offered by a blog] kind of gets transferred from one person to another." Although it would be much slower, a blog could still make as much of an impact as a novel. Due to the fact that we're offering our ideas for the world to see, just like Vonnegut did before us, I believe that he would approve of our efforts.


And so conclude my blogging days. Somewhere in my living room, a dog barked.


-Arshdeep

Just for the Sake of Curiosity

If I could make one change to Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, I would turn Billy Pilgrim into a dynamic character. Billy is a stoic guy; he remains indifferent no matter what goes on around him. Billy appears to lacks the complexity that most humans possess; knowing that his life will be tolerable serves as his only motivation. If Billy were to somehow become dynamic, the novel would be entirely different.

For one thing, a dynamic Billy would never be viewed as an outcast among his fellow soldiers. In Slaughterhouse-Five, Billy is depicted as a boy trapped in the body of a man; he is too innocent to understand all that is going on around him. In the novel, the American army believes in the survival of the fittest, and as the least resourceful soldier, Billy is left to fend for himself. Had Billy been dynamic, he would have developed a "Kill or be killed" mentality that would earn him 'respect' among his comrades. This newly earned respect would help make his stay as a prisoner more bearable.

As a dynamic character, Billy would also be easier to take seriously. One of the few traits that Billy portrays as a static character is that of remoteness and one cannot tell if he's seeing something in real life or in his mind. As a result, some consider his ability to time travel a sham. Had he been a dynamic character, Billy would be easier to relate to, and less people would question his credibility. Billy would also be able to convey the feeling of time travel through other traits.

If I could, I would change Vonnegut's Billy Pilgrim into a dynamic character, just to see how different the novel would become.

-Arshdeep

Entry #2a∑6/M - Tralf. 2.255,2.2

How very peculiar! Look at that earthling, in its natural environment. How strange they look, with those things they call fingers and toes, and limbs and arms. Its much easier to have one of those ripped off. Much better to have a simple body like I. How weird it is how they live. Surrounded by the video boxes and the food chiller. And it defeats me how they can live in the noxious environment of Nitrogen and Oxygen. They must of evolved to avoid reacting with Oxygen... I have to go see how thats done at Timequake. Ah, I see already. In fifteen bijers, I will go and see how it is.

What a dull thing it is. Life that is. There is nothing interesting because we already know everything. We know whats going to happen, what has happened, and what will ever happen. And we will always know. Always. I think I like the human approach better where they don't know. This thing called 'Fate' and 'Free Will'. I wish I was that stupid. Ignorance is indeed bliss.

Always knowing everything, always being aware. I would end my life right now if I didn't know that I wouldn't actually end. I would just be in a bad position at that particular moment. I wonder how earthlings see. How very flat they must view the world. I guess we were designed to be like this.

You earthling, this is my attempt to convey to you how we Tralfamadorians feel and know all. It is strange to use this weird language of humans, where everything is looked at one by one to give sense and not as a whole to impart experience and feeling. You really are queer things.

-Daniel

Welcome to the Tralfamadore Zoo

Welcome to the Tralfamadore International Zoo. Please keep your hand and eye in the shuttle at all times. Although all of you already know what's in store, please try to act mildly surprised when you see all the creatures.

As you all already know, we are now passing the Womboozles. At this moment in time, the Womboozles always have and always will be licking their toes. The Wamboozles have been brought in from the planet of Satercury, where their numbers are limited. These Womboozles will turn to look at you for exactly three seconds before resuming with their interesting activity.

We are coming up to the Wookiee wildlife zone next. As you all know, the Wookiees are known as the 'People of the Trees' and are covered in a thick coat of hair. These creatures come from the planet Kashyyyk, and are loyal and devoted creatures. These Wookiees will not move an inch in the thirty seconds that we will observe them.

As I'm sure you all know, the next territory is that of the Na'vi. The Na'vi are among the tallest creatures we have at our zoo, reaching heights of up to 3m.  They have come, and always will come from Pandora, and are similar in appearence to humans. They are, however, much faster, stronger, and more agile than their human counterparts.

The human exhibit is the last exhibit of the day. As you all know,we currently have two humans in confinement here at the zoo, neither of whom are remotely interesting at all.

I hope you all enjoyed your predetermined visit to the Trafamadore International Zoo. I hope you had, and always will have, a wonderful time.

-Arshdeep

You Can Have Your Cake and Eat It Too

When Kurt Vonnegut published Slaughterhouse-Five in 1969, the United States were in the midst of a war in Vietnam. Vonnegut's novel had instantly received negative feedback, as it contained what critics claim to be anti-American sentiment. Vonnegut was viewed as a heretic for belittling American ideals.

Instead of criticizing Vonnegut, Americans should have thanked him. In the year 1969, America had established itself as a war-loving nation in the world, due to the fact that it had taken part in several wars after WWII. Although many Americans held high views of themselves, residents of other nations looked towards them in fear. America's image in the world was becoming increasingly tarnished. With the release of 'anti-war' books, such as Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, America had re-established its image in the world. It had become a country that "could go to war, and protest going to war at the same time" giving it the image of a "nation founded on saying one thing and doing another."

America could have its cake and eat it too.

Work Cited

"I'm A Little Bit Country." Parker, Trey, and Matt Stone. South Park. Comedy Network. 9 Apr. 2003. Television.

- Arshdeep

Vonnegut, You Tricky Guy

"One guy I knew really was shot in Dresden for taking a teapot that wasn't his" (1).

"I think the climax of the book will be the execution of poor old Edgar Derby. The irony is so great. A whole city gets burned down, and thousands and thousands of people are killed. And then this one American foot soldier is arrested in the ruins for taking a teapot. And he's given a regular trial, and then he's shot by a firing squad" (4).

"Derby's son would survive the war. Derby wouldn't. That good body of his would be
filled with holes by a firing squad in Dresden in sixty-eight days. So it goes." (83).

You know what I'm getting at.

All throughout the novel, the only suspense that Vonnegut left the reader was regarding the death of "Poor old Edgar Derby," who was to be shot by a firing squad for stealing a teapot. As a reader, I was lookin forward to reading about his trial and hearing the reactions of his fellow Americans. In my mind, I had pictured an ending similar to that of the movie 'Hart's War', where the American leader goes out with a bang. Elected as the American leader, I assumed that Derby would follow a similar path, one that would have an everlasting impact on me, as the reader.

"Somewhere in there the poor old high school teacher, Edgar Derby, was caught with a teapot he had taken from the catacombs. He was arrested for plundering. He was tried and shot. So it goes" (214).

After building up 213 pages of suspense (from the third sentence onward), I feel as though I've been slapped in the face by Vonnegut's cruel reality. There are no heroes in war. No matter how reputable an individual may be, what he/she ends up with is not always what he/she deserves. Edgar Derby didn't "go out with a bang."

No one ever does.

-Arshdeep