Banned Book

Before reading Slaughter House Five I was very intrigued because it was one of the most banned books because it tells the harsh truth of war. Why do you think people are so hurt when people make fun of sensitive situations? After finishing this book I was still kinda confused as to why people are so hurt by this book. Maybe it is because I myself agree with Kurt Vonnegut with the whole war is pointless idea. I am really surprised that so many people are up in arms about this book because it took a lot for me to fully understand it. The way Kurt Vonnegut write his feelings towards war is so subtle I wouldn't imagine everyone would fully comprehend what he is trying to say. Why do you guys think he wrote his emotions this way? He very easily could have came out and said war is bad because X and Y. But it isn't anywhere close to that. I honestly do not think I would have understood what Kurt was trying to say if we didn't discuss it everyday in class while reading it. He was so subtle with every symbolic story. Something would be put into half a sentence but they would low-key be explaining exactly how Kurt/ Billy felt about war. Also, why do you guys think he wrote the story in such messed up order? I thought that was interesting because in my opinion, it has something to say about war and its affects on a person. However, he still could have gotten his point across just telling the story of his life before, during, and after the war. The way he structured his story made it much more confusing for me atlas. He would tell a certain story in the beginning of the book but still find out small details by the end. I am thinking it is supposed to be a representation of reflecting on your past and learning from it, like i said in my previous blogs. But, what do you guys think? I also think that it was kind of set up so there was no real point in telling his stories. Just saying stuff because to me it was just a person talking, like their was no plot. Which also says something about Kurt's feeling towards war. I honestly think that it is amazing, to not only have the story tell how you feel but also the way the book is set up. I never really read anything that took symbolism so deeply and that is whyI enjoyed reading and analyzing Slaughter House five so much.

Reality of War

There was one specific moment that I really thought was a good example of how war is represented today. On page 65, Billy and Weary, along with the other men, walked to Germany. It was considered a "fabulous victory" and there was two people there in fur coats to capture the moment. Billy and Weary were in the back of the line so the film had run out by the time they passed the cameramen. Then it said " One of them ( the cameramen) singled out Billy's face for a moment, then focused at infinity again. There was a tiny plume of smoke at infinity. There was a battle there. People were dying there. So it goes." I feel like when Kurt said , " then he focused on infinity again" he meant that this cameraman didn't have to live with the burden of war or guilt. Which kind of correlates with my last blog on Slaughter House five. I believe since this man is only there to capture the moment he probably doesn't have to worry about forgiving himself for the cruel actions he did during war. Therefore he is just staring into infinity or the infinite possibilities he feels for the world because he is so carefree. However, the next line, " There was a battle there. People were dying there. So it goes." In my opinion he is stating that even if the cameraman is pulling off like he is carefree and is always optimistic there is always pain. There will always be pain in everyone no matter how much one denies or acts like there isn't any. Which is just like how war is represented today. Through movies and the media we may only see the glorified version but there is always pain.

Symbolism in SH5

Going into reading Slaughter House Five, I was a little apprehensive just because the story sounded so strange. Until our lit circles in school and I really analyzed the text did I begin to enjoy slaughter house five. My favorite thing about this book was probably all the symbolism. It was very subtle which made it difficult at times to see it. But to me, that's what made it fun. It was like you had to closely analyze each chapter to really understand Kurt's feelings towards war. I think my favorite subtle symbols was the whole "pillar of salt" story where the women looked back at Sodom, her town, and turned into a pillar of salt. I think this one detail in the book really encased what the whole book was trying to say. The girl got turned into  pillar of salt because she looked back on the past. Throughout the entire book Billy Pilgrim is reliving his past but cannot change anything. He just relives different parts and makes him think of other parts of his life which lives him with nothing to do but reflect on his past. Which I think is what Kurt Vonnegut believes you should do. Just brushing off your past is basically saying not taking responsibility for what you have done. And it is important to grow from your past which in my opinion is what Billy Pilgrim is trying to do but is not able to do. He repeatedly says he is "unstuck in time", maybe this meaning he is able to jump from time to time trying to be guilt free from his past actions and grow as a person from it. However, it may be difficult because of the affects of the war on him as a person and all war veterans.

"Big Brother" & Totalitarian Governments:::

Before writing this post, I was a little unclear of what totalitarian meant so I looked it up and two definitions came up as a result. The first definition is " of or relating to a centered government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises doctored control over many aspects of life." The second is, " exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of other." In my opinion, Oceania is precisely a totalitarian government. This " Big Brother" idea is just a tactic to scare the people into having the same opinions. I guess that can seem ideal if you want a society where everyone agrees on everything and no one fights against the rules. Which is the only upside ( if there even is an upside) to a totalitarian government. On page 268, in the midst of Winston being tortured, O'Brien explains what kind of government "the Party" is running. O'Brien says, " That is the world we are preparing, Winston. A world of victory, triumph after triumph after triumph: an endless pressing, pressing,pressing upon the nerve of power. You are beginning, I can see, to realize what that world would be like, But in the end you will dos more then understand it. You will accept it, welcome it, become a part of it. O'Brien, in this quote, is basically explaining what there government is and why it functions the way it does. " Triumph, after triumph, after triumph.." I really like this quote that I pulled off of page 268. I just can't comprehend why you'd want triumph after triumph. In my opinion you can 't feel triumph if you don't feel failure first. With only triumph, in our country, there would be no Declaration of Independence because Britain would just automatically agree to what we want them to agree. If our past was altered to triumph after triumph we would have no past to learn from. It was just be depressing day after depressing day just always "winning" but on the inside you are empty. I just can not comprehend putting human beings under such strict rules just because you( the government) don't want to deal with disagreements and just want to "win". That isn't even living to me. That's just existing for no reason. I understand that it can be hard to please a whole country however, this "life" these robots are living was never a solution. Do you guys agree with me that having your freedom is more important than safety?

Does our Media Twist Info?:::

>>How/Why is info twisted by media?<<

Everyday, our perception of news around the world is altered. Well known news stations like Fox and CNN need to get high viewer ratings to make money. And to get more views, you need to stretch the truth a little bit more to become intriguing. It is a little more extreme in 1984 because they are purposely brainwashing the people of Oceania to believe certain things to keep them under "Big Brother" rules. Which in my opinion is very similar to our society today. Maybe just nit as evident because we have laws granting our freedom to things like freedom that the government in 1984 is brainwashing to get rid of. However, if you believe that our media does not stretch the truth to change our perception you are wrong. It could be something as simple as changing the word "killed" to "massacred". Say that a news station titles an article "Black man massacred innocent students" Doesn't adding massacred and innocent give a negative make you perceive that man in a more negative way? It isn't as in your face as the government in 1984 but it happens everyday in subtle ways you may not even notice. This is very similar to how the government portrayed Goldstein. In class, we talked about how he probably isn't even real and if he is real, he isn't this horrible outcast that he is portrayed to be. Goldstein basically was a face to represent this character you should never be like because he was a rebel and the government made him "disappear" Do you guys think we have a symbol for an outlaw similar to Goldstein? Or do you agree that the news station alter the truth to make you perceive things to their liking? My personal experience with medias influence over me is Twitter because it always shows negatives about Donald Trump. Even if Donald Trump did something good, it is unlikely I would hear about as quickly as I hear about his racist and sexist remarks. Now, I ultimately think he is horrible person because that's what the media presents in order to catch our attention. Let me know if you have ever been affected by anything with a lot of influence over you has changed your perception of something!